order of framing of charges without considering the relevant material before him, that the learned judge ought to have seen that the chargesheet submitted and the documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that the petitioners have committed any offence for which they are charged, that the learned judge ought to have seen that the prosecution has erroneously filed the charge sheet against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 punishable under Section 302 read with 109 of I.P.C., though the facts of the case does not attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 of I.P.C, that the learned judge erred in framing charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 109 of I.P.C. though the facts of the case and material filed along with the chargesheet do not disclose any ingredients for the offences so charged, that the learned Judge ought to have seen that no case is made out against the petitioners from the evidence collected by the prosecution or linking them to the crime, that the learned judge without properly considering the material before it, in mechanical way framed the charges against the petitioners resulting in the abuse of process of law and the same is unreasonable and unsustainable and not supported by any material on record, that the order of the learned Judge and entire proceedings against the petitioners pending before the trial Court are liable to be quashed.
