K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 13-8-86 passed by the Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr. Review No. 5 1/86 whereby he has set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore discharging the applicant under section 239 Cr. P. C. 1973 (for short the Code) in respect of offences under sections 447, 294 and 506 I. P. C. ( 2 ) IT is common ground that the landed property in question belonged to Chunni and Suresh. By a registered sale-deed dated 2-4-85, they have sold it to the Society of which the non-applicant No. 1 is the President, for a consideration of Rs. 2 lacs. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner under an agreement for sale of the land, the said vendor had delivered possession of the land to him on 17-2-81 on receiving Rs. 25. 000/- and subsequently on 12-4-84 a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was again paid towards the transaction. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the non-applicants a civil suit has been instituted against the applicant Rupkishore. Subsequently the petitioner indulged in the offences in question. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioners learned counsel is that the dispute in question is essentially of a civil nature and the forum of criminal court is being resorted to pressurise the petitioner to submission. ( 7 ) THE contention of the non-applicant is that at the initial stage under section 239 of the Code all that the Court has to see is the material placed by the prosecution on record and the learned Magistrate committed a gave error in taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner. According to them, this could only be done at the subsequent stage of the trial. It is contended by the non-applicants that in the circumstances the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is the proper one. ( 8 ) SECTION 239 of the Code deals with discharge and section 2400) ibid points out when charge has to be framed. They may usefully be reproduced. They run thus:section 238. It is contended by the non-applicants that in the circumstances the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is the proper one. ( 8 ) SECTION 239 of the Code deals with discharge and section 2400) ibid points out when charge has to be framed. They may usefully be reproduced. They run thus:section 238. When accused shall be charged - If upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination if any of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. Section 240. Framing of charge, (1) If upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. ( 9 ) THE examination of the accused contemplated under section 239 of the Code must necessarily be with regard to the material against him. The hearing contemplated under the, provision means oral hearing or granting audience as distinguished from examination of anyone. as a witness. In taking a decision, it has to be borne in mind that an accused is presumed to be innocent and his version if it is reasonable and accords with probabilities is entitled to due consideration. ( 10 ) UNDER the provision embodied in section 239 of the Code the Magistrate has to apply judicial mind and come to a decision one way or the other. He is certainly not to weigh the material as at the stage of final judgment but he has certainly the jurisdiction to weigh it and ascertain its worth for the limited purpose therein contemplated. In this connection the decisions in State of M. P. v. Ahmad 1 and Abdul Shakoor v. State of M. P. 2 may usefully be perused. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, the question essentially is as to the actual possession of the property on the relevant date. It is not the petitioners case that he had parted with the entire consideration. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, the question essentially is as to the actual possession of the property on the relevant date. It is not the petitioners case that he had parted with the entire consideration. In the circumstances it would not be reasonable to proceed on the footing that the petitioner was in possession of the same. ( 12 ) FURTHER it is well settled that despite the wide words in which the discretionary revisional powers under section 397 of the Code are clothed, this jurisdiction has to be exercised where the impugned order occasions failure of justice. ( 13 ) ON a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that there is force in the N. A. s contention and no case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been made out. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. Petition allowed. .