JUDGMENT 1. - While disposing the stay petition with the consent of the parties, the main petition is being disposed. 2. This petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order framing charge for the offences under sections 323, 325 and 452 I.P.C against the petitioners 1, 2, & 3 and for offence under section 380 I.P.C. against petitioner No. 4. The complainant in the case is one Hari Ram, who is the brother of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 are the sons of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. With this relationship between the petitioner and the complainant it is apparent that the dispute is between relations and it has been pointed out that there is a dispute about shares in property between them. The incident took place on 5.7.1985 About this incident a report was lodged by the petitioner and another report by the complainant. It appears that a final report was given out the complaint filed by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that this is a dispute between brothers and does not deserve to be taken to a criminal court and secondly that even the complaint in the case does not make out a case against the petitioners. The case is said to be false on account of enmity between the parties. It is pointed out that in the FIR the witnesses have not been named and the police has not recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P C. The statements which have been furnished to the petitioners are the subsequent statements of the witnesses. A number of decisions have been relied upon in order to contend that a charge should not be framed when there is no material before the court for purpose of proceeding with the case and no case is made out against the accused. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited a number of decisions and contended that this is a case where sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the case against the accused persons and this court should not interfere under its inherent powers with the order of framing charge. 5. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited a number of decisions and contended that this is a case where sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the case against the accused persons and this court should not interfere under its inherent powers with the order of framing charge. 5. Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if upon considering the police report and the document sent with it and making such examination, if any, of the accused 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, Under Section 240 Cr. P.C. if the Magistrate upon such consideration is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. Thus at the stage of framing of the charge the Magistrate has to see whether offence against accused is groundless or there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. It can be said that if from the material on record it could be said that no court could reasonably come to the conclusion that the accused were in any manner connected with the incident leading to the prosecution the accused is to be discharged. At the same time some material on record, sufficient for presuming connection of the accused with the offence, would be sufficient for framing charge against him This material cannot t be said to be a material on the basis of which conviction of the accused can be said to be possible. What is necessary is that there should be ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon (1) State of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy and others AIR 1977 SC 1489 . (2) Suresh Kumar Gupta v. Om Prakash Alipuriya 1977 Cr. What is necessary is that there should be ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon (1) State of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy and others AIR 1977 SC 1489 . (2) Suresh Kumar Gupta v. Om Prakash Alipuriya 1977 Cr. L.J. 1416 , (3) Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 , (4) Kurda Ram vs State of Rajasthan, 1985 RLW 700 , (5) Madan Lal and Anand Prakash v. The State of Rajasthan and others, 1979 WLN (UC) 212 and (6) M/s. Prestolite of India Ltd. and another v. The Munsif Magistrate, Hawali and another 1978 Cr. L.J. 538 , in order to contend that there is no prima facie case on the basis of which it could be said that charge against the petitioners should he framed. It is contended that the High Court under its inherent powers or in revision care examine this position and when the case against the petitioner is groundless then the charge should be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has contested this position and according to him there is a prima facie case against the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on (7) Jawala Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1987 (2) Crimes 360 , (8) Muhd. Akbar Dar and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, AIR 1981 SC 1548 and (9) Supdt. of Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, AIR 1980 SC 52 . It has been contended that when the material on record shows a prima facie case against the accused than framing of charge is justified. It has also been contended that even a very if strong suspicion about commission of offence can be made out from the material on record then it is sufficient for framing of the charge. 8. From the various decisions which have been cited above, it can be said that most of the decisions sited by the petitioners pertain to matters where the dispute between parties was of a civil nature but a criminal case had been instituted and it was found that the record did not make out a prima facie case that the accused had committed an offence. 9. 9. What is to be seen in the present case is whether it can be said on the basis of material on record that the accused petitioners have committed offence. There is no doubt that there have been property disputes between the parties and a number of cases have already been fought by the parties. There has been a final report in other matters but this would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the complaint or FIR in the present case is also a false one. The fact which can be said to be relevant in this case is that cross F.I Rs. were lodged about the incident which occurred on 5.7.1985 which goes to show that some incident did take ..lace and it is not a case where it could be said that the result is out of an imagination of the complainant party. Both parties were involved in some incident and when the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses disclosed that the petitioners participated in that incident then it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case to proceed against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to point out contradictions and omissions in the statements and has also tried to show that some of the witnesses came later on and would not have seen the incident, but at the stage of framing of charge such a meticulous examination of the evidence is not possible. The learned Magistrate has discussed the evidence which is against the petitioners and has specifically referred to the evidence against the petitioner No. 4. who is alleged to have removed Rs. 1,700/- from the cash box of the complainant and some witnesses have supported this allegation while others have not. But at this stage is is not possible to say that the witnesses who have deposed against the petitioners should not be believed. All these matters shall be looked into during the trial of the case. In my view the course adopted by the learned Magistrate can neither be said to be an abuse of the process of the court nor it can be said that to secure the ends of justice, this court should exercise its inherent powers in this case. It cannot be said that the order of framing charge is illegal or improper so as to call for any interference. 10. It cannot be said that the order of framing charge is illegal or improper so as to call for any interference. 10. This petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******