[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 53/2008 NATWAR KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 22/02/2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. V.S. Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. R.K. Daga for the complainant-respondent. **** The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 08.10.2007 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City in Criminal Revision No. 16/2007, by which the Revisional Court has dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.07.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.11, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 41/2004, whereby charge for the offence under Section 494 IPC has been framed against the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent and upon careful perusal of the orders impugned dated [2] 19.07.2007 and 08.10.2007 passed by the trial Court and the Revisional Court respectively, this Court finds no illegality or error in the orders impugned as concurrent findings have been given by the Courts below and the same requires no interference by this Court. The Revisional Court while dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner, has also observed that as per the material and evidence available on record, at this stage it cannot be said that the charges against the petitioner are baseless and the trial Court has not committed any error in framing charge under Section 494 IPC against the petitioner. Even otherwise also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari And Others, (2000) 2 SCC 57, has held that Court has only to see whether prima facie there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused- It cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in the matter. On facts, the High Court in revision erred in quashing the charge framed against the accused by trial Court by appreciating the material produced by the prosecution and on that basis deciding that accused was not guilty. [3] Therefore, in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also, no case of any interference in the orders impugned is made out as this Court finds no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record which require any interference. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/