JUDGMENT :

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 1st November, 2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fast Track Court, Jaunur in Case No. 1384 of 2018 (State Vs. Amarjeet Tiwari), arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, and 452 I.P.C., Police Station-Barsathi, District-Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fast Track Court, Jaunur in Case No. 1384 of 2018 (State Vs. Amarjeet Tiwari), whereby the discharge application of the applicants has been rejected.

2. Heard Mr. Maheshwari Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that a non-cognizable report has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants and one other person on 10th November, 2014, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 232 of 2014 under Sections 323, 504 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Barsathi, District-Jaunpur. After conducting statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., charge-sheet came to be submitted on 5th January, 2015 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 and 452 I.P.C. on which the concerned court took cognizance vide order dated 24th February, 2015 and the case has been numbered as Case No. 1384 of 2018 (State Vs. Amarjeet Tiwari). On 27th March, 2018, the applicants have filed discharge application, which has been rejected under the order impugned.

4. Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the applicants submits that on Ram Achchaibar has filed Civil Suit No. 1353 of 2019 (Ram Achchaibar Vs. Balendra Kumar & Others) in which father of the applicant is opposite party no.4 and because of the dispute giving rise to the said suit, the opposite party no.2 is trying to accused him in the non-cognizable report. It is further submitted that as per the allegations made in the first information report, the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 I.P.C. I.P.C. are not made out against the applicants and the present N.C.R. has been registered against the applicants with malicious intention only or the purposes of harassing them. It is then submitted that the Investigating Officer without collecting documentary evidence against applicants, only on the basis of the statement of informant Devendra Kumar Dwivedi has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 I.P.C. in illegal and arbitrary manner. From perusal of the contents of FIR and the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. no prima facie offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. It is lastly submitted that the learned court below has rejected the discharge application of the applicants in routine manner, which is illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and against the principle of natural justice. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, the order impugned cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be quashed.

5. On the other-hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact and the veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution cannot be examined at this stage. As such there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the present application.

7. Before proceeding to adjudge the validity of the impugned order it may be useful to cast a fleeting glance to some of the representative cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have expatiated upon the legal approach to be adopted at the time of framing of the charge or at the time of deciding whether the accused ought to be discharged. It shall be advantageous to refer to the observa