The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not interfere with the rejection of a discharge petition unless there is inherent perversity in the lower court's findings.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour in connection with G.R. Case No. 1546 of 2013 under sections 448/427/354/323/506/34 of India Penal Code (IPC) pending before the learned ACJM, Diamond Harbour, by which the revisional court affirmed the order of trial court dated 18.08.2018, petitioners preferred this application under section 227 of the constitution of India, read with section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Learned Trial Court vide its order dated 18.08.2018 was pleased to reject the petitioners' prayer for discharge filed under section 239 of Cr.P.C after considering the materials in the case diary, including contents of complaint and the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., during investigation.

2. The opposite party no. 2, Musaraf Hossain Mondal filed a petition of complain before the learned ACJM, Diamond Harbour against the present petitioners, alleging commission of cognizable offence with a prayer for directing Officer-in-charge, Usti P.S. to register a case and to start investigation in terms of section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, as directed by learned Magistrate, Usti P.S. treating petition of complain as FIR started investigation being Usti P.S. Case No. 196 of 2013 under section 448/427/380/379/354/323/506/34 of IPC. The investigation consequently culminated into charge sheet being Usti P.S. charge sheet 305 of 2013 dated 11.09.2013 for the offence punishable under section 448/427/354/323/506/34 IPC.

3. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance supplied copies to the present petitioners and was pleased to fix the case for framing of charge. On 17.04.2018, the accused petitioners filed petition under section 239 Cr.P.C, praying for their discharge from this case. Before the court below, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that a long standing land dispute and other disputes are going on between the parties and out of grudge the opposite party no. 2 has initiated the present proceeding against the petitioners. Petitioners contended that the charge submitted against the accused persons /petitioners herein is groundless and has no basis, since the materials on record available in the case diary, does not support the case of the prosecution and as such the petitioners are liable to be discharged. Petitioners have relied upon the following decision:-

4. State vehemently opposed the said prayer and State also supported the order impugned by which the prayer for discharge was rejected and State in support of their contention relied upon judgment reported in AIR 1955 SC 196.

5. The court below while disposed of the Criminal Motion being No. 146 of 2018, was pleased to observe that the old property dispute between the parties may be there but mere existence of long standing property dispute does not give an escape route to the alleged wrong doers to get a favourable order at the budding stage of the proceeding. Court further held that the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C and other materials, prima facie, directed to arrow of accusation against the present petitioners and learned Magistrate is not supposed to held a mini trial at the stage of framing of