SAHIDUL ISLAM MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 18/3/2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour in connection with G.R. Case No. 1546 of 2013 under Sec. 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 dtd. 18/8/2018, petitioners preferred this application under sec. 227 of the constitution of India, read with sec. 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Learned Trial Court vide its order dtd. 18/8/2018 was pleased to reject the petitioners' prayer for discharge filed under sec. 239 of Cr.P.C after considering the materials in the case diary, including contents of complaint and the statements recorded under sec. 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 sec. 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 sec. 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 dtd. 11/9/2013 for the offence punishable under sec. 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 17/4/2018, the accused petitioners filed petition under sec. 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:-