[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 564/2007 AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 04.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Ms. Arti Sharma for Mr. Ashvin Garg for the accused-petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava for the complainant-respondent No.2. **** The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order impugned dated 22.03.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota in Criminal Case No. 50/2006, whereby charges for the offences under Sections 406 and 384 IPC have been framed against the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Satnam Moga & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 702, wherein this Court has held that “Framing of charge- Expression used in the provision 'ground for presuming' must be taken into consideration- Strong suspicion is enough to frame a charge- Standard of proof for conviction and for framing of charge are not the same- Four conditions laid [2] down as requirement of a charge- Held, The charge has been well framed and the denial of facts by the accused are to be gone into at the time of the trial.” I have heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and have also gone through the order impugned dated 22.03.2007, whereby charges have been framed against the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 384 IPC. At the time of framing charge, it has only to be seen by the Court as to whether prima- facie case is made out against the accused or not, and in the instant case as the trial Court found that prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner, therefore, charges for the offences under Sections 406 and 384 IPC have been framed against the accused-petitioner. Even otherwise also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari And Others, reported in (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, High Court in revision erred in quashing the charge framed against the accused by the trial [3] Court by appreciating the material produced by the prosecution and on that basis deciding that accused was not guilty. Thus, having gone through the order impugned dated 22.03.2007 passed by the Court below and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find no illegality or error in the order impugned framing charge against the accused-petitioner and the same requires no interference by this Court. Consequently, the criminal revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/