IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.994 of 2006 1. Parvindar Kumar Singh 2. Santosh Kumar Singh @ Santosh Kumar (Both sons of Sri Duesh Singh, resident of village-Saine (Rajput Tola), P.S.-Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Chandraket Singh, son of Late Dhandeep Singh, resident of village- Saine (Rajput Tola), P.S.-Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. ----------- 6. 26.07.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 5.09.2006 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in S.T.No.390/99 by which the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 228(I) of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Singh No.3, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mrs. I.B.Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that no offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. He has further contended that at best on the basis of the material offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. 2 was made out against the petitioners. As such, the charge can be framed against the petitioners under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and the case record to be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur for trial. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 submits that during investigation, it has come to light that the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. is made out against the accused . In support of their contention, paragraph nos.6, 8, 9, 10,13 and 22 of the case diary have been referred. It has further been submitted that after considering all these materials, the learned trial court has rejected the petition dated 21.01.2006 filed on behalf of the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the carbon copy of the case diary, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is correct. At the time of considering the petition under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., the learned trial court is not required to meticulously judge nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. If there is a strong suspicion against the 3 accused giving rise to presumption of his guilt then it is not open to the court to show that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The Court has only to find the prima facie case against the accused. At the stage of framing of charges meticulous consideration of evidence and materials on record by the court is not necessary. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision in the case of Rana Ramdev Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2000(4) PLJR 405. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)