This revision petition is filed by the revision

petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to set aside the

order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge

and JMFC, Shahabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial

Court’) on the application filed under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C., in C.C.No.265/2020.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the informant-

Mohammed

Mastan

lodged

first

information

against

accused Nos.1 to 5 on 27.07.2020 at 6.00 p.m., stating

that on the said day, at about 12.50 in the noon, when he

was near the Post Office at Railway Station, accused Nos.1

to 5 and 5 to 6 other persons armed with firewood,

chopper etc., came and abused him in filthy language and

committed

rioting

and

criminally

intimidated

him.

Therefore, he requested the police to register the case and

to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the police have

registered the case and took up investigation. It is stated

that after investigation charge sheet came to be filed

4

against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506(2) r/w Section 149 of

IPC. The petitioners filed application under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C., seeking discharge. Vide order dated 30.12.2021,

the said application came to be rejected.

3.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed

by the Trial Court, the petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 6

are before this Court.

4.

Heard Sri Gurubasava C. Nayak, learned

counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Gururaj V.

Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State. Perused the material on record.

5.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners

submitted that the petitioners have not committed any

offences as alleged. They are falsely implicated in the

matter without any basis. Initially, FIR came to be

registered against accused Nos.1 to 5. Subsequently,

charge sheet is filed against the petitioners arraigning

5

them as accused Nos.1 to 6. Even though serious

allegations are made, the petitioners have not committed

any offence. He also submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3

were working at Hyderabad at the time of alleged incident.

Similarly, accused No.4 was admitted in the hospital and

was taking treatment. Under such circumstances, they

could not have committed the offences. Even though the

petitioners filed application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.,

before the Trial Court, the same came to be dismissed vide

order dated 30.12.2021. The Trial Court has not applied

its mind while passing the impugned order. Therefore, he

prays for allowing the petition and to set aside the

impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

6.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader supporting the impugned order passed by the Trial

Court submitted that serious allegations are made against

the petitioners for having committed the offences. After

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. It is for the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The

6

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 were not at the spot could be

proved by them by taking proper defence. The Trial Court

has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners

under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he prays for

dismissal of the petition.

7.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise

for my consideration is:

“Whether the impugned order passed by

the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with?

What order?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the

following:

REASONS

8.

It is the specific contention of the informant

that accused Nos.1 to 5 and others by forming themselves

into an unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly

weapons came and abused him in filthy language. They

7

committed rioting and also criminally intimidated to take

away his life. After investigation, charge sheet came to be

filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 who are the petitioners

herein. The contention of the learned couns