JUDGMENT : CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.09.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai in Criminal Revision No. 08 of 2023 and also quashing the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 61 of 2019 (GR No. 147 of 2019), whereby and where under learned CJM has rejected the discharge petition filed on on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that present prosecution is based upon the self-statement of Niraj Kumar, Police Inspector-cum-SHO Lakhisarai who disclosed the fact that on 21.01.2019 at about 08:30 PM he has got secret information that in the house of Anil Singh situated at Karyanand Nagar, Ward No. 9, one Bibha Sinha (petitioner), tenant is running a sex racket. On the basis of said information he alongwith other police officials reached near the rented house of Bibha Sinha. During raid a lady was found sitting in a room, who disclosed her name as Bibha Sinha and said to live in that house. There were two rooms in the house. East side of the room was opened, whereas west side of the room was found closed. The police enquired from Bibha Sinha about the said room but she could not give satisfactory reply. After ten minutes, the door was open, where a lady and a male person were found in the room and disclosed their names as Chhotu Lal and Mumtaz Khatun. Upon search, from said room two used condoms and 15 new condoms were recovered and a seizure list was prepared of that effect. 4. On the basis of aforesaid information Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 61 of 2019 was lodged by the police on 21.01.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956 against petitioner and others and upon completion of investigation charge-sheet has also been submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic and Prevention Act 1956 and accordingly cognizance was taken by learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. 5. Aggrieved with aforesaid, discharge petition was preferred by the petitioner before learned trial court which after considering every aspects rejected the petition vide order dated 16.11.2022. 5. Aggrieved with aforesaid, discharge petition was preferred by the petitioner before learned trial court which after considering every aspects rejected the petition vide order dated 16.11.2022. It would be apposite to reproduce the discharge order dated 16.11.2022 for the sake of better understanding of the case, which is as under :- C.J.M. Lakhisarai GR No. 147/19 16-11-22 lHkh 3 vfHk;qDrksa esa NksVs yky fo'odekZ vkSj foHkk flUgk dh vksj ls izfrfuf/kRo i= gSA vU; ,d vfHk;qDr eqerkt [kkrqu vuqifLFkr gSA mfpr iSjoh djsaA vfHkys[k izLrqr gqvkA okn vfHk;qDr foHkk flUgk dh vksj ls fnukad 29-6-22 dks nkf[ky vkosnu ij vkns'k gsrq fu;r gSA vkosnu esa vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls dFku gS fd izkFkhZ ds fo:) fnukad 21-01-19 dks /kkjk 3@4@5@6 ds varxZRk izkFkfedh ntZ fd;k x;k gSA ;g fd iqfyl }kjk vfHk;qDr ij bYtke yxk;k x;k gS fd og ckgjh yM+dh dks vius edku esa ykdj nsg O;kikj dk /ka/kk pykrh jgh gSA bldh lwpuk rRi'pkr~ iqfyl v/kh{kd dks fn;k vkSj iqfyl cy ds le{k fof/kor izkFkhZ foHkk flUgk ds ?kj dh ryk'kh izkjEHk fd;kA ryk'kh ds Øe esa vkosnd foHkk flUgk ,d dejs esa cSBh feyhA ftl dejs esa cSBh Fkh] mls fdjk;s ds edku dk dejk crk;hA blds vykos nks vkSj dejk Fkk] ftlesa ,d [kqyk Fkk vkSj ,d vnaj ls can FkkA iwNus ij foHkk flUgk us Li"V dqN ugha crkbZA ;g fd foHkk flUgk vius nks cPpksa ds lkFk dk;kZuan uxj okMZ ua0 9 ds edku esa ,d :e fdjk, ij ysdj jg jgh FkhA blh edku ds mijh ry ij edku ekfyd vius ifjokj lfgr jgrs gSaA ,d vU; fdjk;snkj eqerkt [kkrqu dHkh&dHkh vkrh Fkh] tc Hkh vkrh Fkh rks jkr esa xsV [kksyuk] yxkuk yxk jgrk Fkk] ftldk fojks/k foHkk flUgk djrh Fkh] ftl otg ls nksuksa esa uksd >ksad gks x;k FkkA ;g fd izkFkhZ ds dejs ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vkifRrtud leku izkIr ugha gqvkA tIrh dk LFkku foHkk flugk ds fdjk, ds edku ds dejk ds vUnj ls dk;kZuan uxj okMZ ua0 10 Fkk ft0 y[khljk; esa ik;k x;k gSA tcfd vfHk;qDr dk fdjk;k dk :e okMZ ua0 9 vfuy flag dk;kZuan Fkk] ft0 y[khljk; gSA ;g fd tIrh lwph ij eqerkt dk gLrk{kj gS] uk fd foHkk flUgk dk vkSj tks Hkh xokgh gS og lc iqfyl inkf/kdkjh gh gSA vU; dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA ;g fd edku ekfyd dk Hkh dksbZ c;ku ;k lk{; ugha gSA ;g fd vfHk;qDRk ds fo:) /kkjk 3@4@5@6 ykxw ugha gksrk gSA ;g fd vkosnd dk dksbZ vkijkf/kd bfrgkl ugha gSA vr% vfHk;qDr foHkk flUgk ds vkosnu dks Lohdkj djrs gq, mijksDr okn ls o bTtr fjgk fd;k tk;A lgk- yksd vfHk- }kjk bl vkosnu ds vkyksd esa fn0 29-09-22 dks izfrmRrj nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS vkSj mudk dFku gS fd ;g ds'k vkjksi xBu gsrq fuf'pr gSA fyf[kr dFku tSlk fd dkaM nSfudh ds dafMdk 2 esa lwpd dk iquZdFku gS] ikjk 3 esa tIrh lwph] ikjk 5 esa js.kq dqekjh] ikjk 6 esa ckyeqdqUn jk; vkSj ikjk 11 esa js.kq nsoh gS] ftUgksauas ?kVuk dk leFkZu fd;k gSA vuqla/kkudrkZ }kjk vuqla/kku ds Øe esa mijksDr vfHk;qDrksa ds fo:) i;kZIr lk{; ikrs gq, vkjksi i= lefiZr fd;k x;k FkkA vr% budh vksj ls izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS fd vkosnd dh vksj ls mUekspu ;kfpdk fnukad 29-06-22 dks [kkfjt fd;k tk; vkSj bl okn esa vkjksi xBu fd;k tk;A lquk vkSj vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA voyksdu ls izrhr gksrk gS fd dkaM nSfudh ds dafMdk 2 esa lwpd dk iquZdFku gS] ikjk 3 esa tIrh lwph] ikjk 5 esa js.kq dqekjh] ikjk 6 esa ckyeqdqUn jk; vkSj ikjk 11 esa js.kq nsoh gS] ftUgksauas ?kfVr ?kVuk dk leFkZu fd;k gSA vkosnd ds fo:) vkjksi i= ,oa dkaM nSfudh esa miyC/k i;kZIr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij uketn vfHk;qDrksa ds fo:) fnukad 29-9-20 dks laKku fy;k tk pqdk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkosnd foHkk flUgk dh vksj ls fnukad 29-6-22 dks nkf[ky dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA fnukad 15-12-22 vkjksi xBu gsrqA 6. Petitioner further preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhsarai through Criminal Revision No. 08/2023 challenging the aforesaid impugned order, which was also dismissed by vide order dated 26.09.2023. It would be apposite to reproduce para 6 of the aforesaid revision, which is as under :- Criminal Revision No. 08/2023 6. The purpose of the revision provisions is to rectify a legal deficiency or a jurisdictional or legal mistake. In the instant case, there is neither any ambiguity nor any well-founded violation of legal provisions. Further, it can be observed that the impugned order does not suffer from any inaccuracy or does not adhere with the provisions of Law, and exhibit any unfairness or perversity. The main aim of the provisions of revision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There must be a solid ground in favour of a well-founded error and whether the decision under question is grossly erroneous, whether there is no compliance with the provisions of law, whether the findings are not based on proper evidence, whether material evidence is ignored or Judicial decision has been exercised arbitrarily. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge the Court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging, therefore, taken at then face value, reflects the excellence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. Requirement is just to examine whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed by the accused. 7. Being aggrieved with both aforesaid orders petitioner preferred present quashing petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that during the course of investigation not a single witness came forward to support the allegations levelled against the petitioner in FIR, as petitioner was running a sex racket. It is pointed out that no complaint had ever been made by any neighbour or even by the owner of the house or the people of the locality that petitioner was indulged in any immoral practices. It is pointed out that no complaint had ever been made by any neighbour or even by the owner of the house or the people of the locality that petitioner was indulged in any immoral practices. It is submitted that petitioner was a tenant in the said house as apprehended co-accused persons and there is no nexus between the apprehended persons to that of this petitioner. Petitioner was living there with her minor daughter and son. It is submitted that no incriminating articles as alleged through seizure list was said to be recovered from the room of this petitioner. It is also pointed out that the boy and girl, who were inside the room were not found in a compromising position and therefore it is difficult to say that house was being used for running a sex racket. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid, petitioner appears only a next door tenant to that of the main co-accused in the same building and a completely innocent lady and thus there is no ground as to frame charges against petitioner under Immoral Traffic Act as aforesaid. 8. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State, while opposing the prayer submitted that from the FIR itself, it appears that the house where lady and boy was found alongwith objectionable material like condoms etc., was interconnected to the room, where this petitioner was found sitting and moreover, occurrence was supported during the investigation by different witnesses. In support of his submission, learned APP referred para no. 5, 6 and 11 of the case diary, where the statement of Ranju Kumari, Balmukund Rai and Renu Devi are available, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. who supported the occurrence. 9. The issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is amounting to examination/evaluation of factual aspects to the extent that this case may culminate with the acquittal of the petitioner. Certainly the probative value of evidence cannot be appreciated at this stage. In view of allegation as available through FIR against petitioner and after submission of charge-sheet it cannot be said that charge against petitioner was ground less. In this connection it would be apposite to reproduce para no. 14 & 15 of Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2022) 9 SCC 577 , which are as under :- 14. In view of allegation as available through FIR against petitioner and after submission of charge-sheet it cannot be said that charge against petitioner was ground less. In this connection it would be apposite to reproduce para no. 14 & 15 of Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2022) 9 SCC 577 , which are as under :- 14. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371, the Court cautioned against accepting every document produced by the prosecution on face value, and noted that it was important to sift the evidence produced before the Court. It observed that : (SCC pp. 376-377, Para 21) “21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.” 15. Summarising the principles on discharge under Section 227 CrPC, in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361, this Court recapitulated : (SCC p. 561, para 23) “23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence.” 10. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal submission and by taking note of the fact as the impugned orders which is rejection of discharge petition, dated 16.11.2022 and revisional order dated 26.09.2023 does not suffers any illegality as to say that charges levelled against petitioner are groundless. No doubt probative evaluation and factual analysis of the evidence qua crime in question and involvement of petitioner to the extent as whether it may culminate with her acquittal or conviction cannot be done at this stage, accordingly, the aforesaid discharge and revision orders need not be interfered with. 11. The present quashing petition stands dismissed. 12. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.