ORDER :

1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bhilwara, Camp-Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in Criminal Revision Petition No. 36/2018 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 02.01.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bijoliya, District Bhilwara by which the learned Magistrate framed charges for the offences under Sections 452, 379, 427 of IPC against the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the documents available on record, the petitioners were having possession over the land and also a Patta was issued in their favour. In these circumstances, offences under Section 452 IPC does not fulfill in the present case, but both the Courts below have erred in law in framing the charge for the offence under Section 452 of IPC against the petitioners without considering the documentary evidences in right manner. Counsel further submits that similarly offence under Section 379 of IPC is also not made out against the petitioners, therefore, the charge for offence under Section 379 of IPC is also liable to be set aside. It is further, prayed that the orders impugned may be set aside and this petition may kindly be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned orders and submitted that both the Courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly framed the charges which does not called for any interference.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. From the material available on record, it is evident that initially the police gave negative final report in this matter. Thereafter complainant filed a protest petition before the trial Court upon which statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial Court. Thereafter, learned trial Court vide order dated 14.07.2017 allowed the protest petition of the complainant and took cognizance under Sections 452, 379, 427 of IPC against the petitioners. Subsequently, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for aforesaid sections. The petitioners challenging the same, filed a criminal revision before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Bhilwara, Camp-Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara and the same was dismissed by the revisional Court.

6. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court has only to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, make way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

7. In the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C. which are as below:

“(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(iii) The court ca