JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable early. 3. Considering the controversy involved and order proposed to be passed, service to respondent no.2 is dispended with. 4. Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. appears waiving service on behalf of Respondent no.1-State. 5. Heard finally by consent of parties before court. 6. By this petition. the petitioners-accused in Regular Criminal Case No.82 of 2008 pending on the tile of Judicia1 Magistrate, First Class, Pandharkawada(Kelapur) has assailed the order dated 27.01.2010 rejecting his application for discharge preferred under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the petitioners are charge-sheeted by Pandharkawada Police Station for commission of offence under Section 394 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as a result of investigation of Crime No.83/2008 registered upon the report lodged by respondent no.2. 7. It is not in dispute that said report was lodged regarding an incident occurred on 9.7.2008 at about 7.00 p.m. It is also not in dispute that with regard to said incident, petitioner no.1 has also lodged another report and thereon another Crime No.82/2008 had been registered against respondent no.2 and two unknown persons for offences under Sections 394, 341, 506-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Mr. Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, by drawing attention to the matters recorded in paragraph 13 of order impugned, submitted that the trial court manifestly erred in rejecting an application for discharge, ever after taking into consideration the fact of existence of counter case in between parties regarding same incident. Mr. Bhuibhar, learned counsel submitted that the learned magistrate also failed to take into consideration the fact of the social background of petitioner no.1 as revealed from number of documents filed on his behalf before the learned trial court. Mr. Bhuibhar, learned counsel submitted that the trial court miserably missed the fact of the report of said incident lodged by petitioner no.1 was first in point of time. He further submitted that after the incident both the parties were referred by the police for medical examination. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 sustained injuries during incident while medical report reveals that injuries allegedly suffered by respondent no.2 were self-inflicted injuries. It is the main submission of Mr. Bhuibhar, learned counsel that the said fact fully denotes that the complaint lodged against the petitioners was false and as such the trial court ought to have discharged the petitioners. Mr. It is the main submission of Mr. Bhuibhar, learned counsel that the said fact fully denotes that the complaint lodged against the petitioners was false and as such the trial court ought to have discharged the petitioners. Mr. Bhuibhar, learned counsel submitted that the said aspect even agitated before the Court of Sessions was also lost sight of and an erroneous order of rejection of application was maintained by the Court of Session. It is thus submitted that the order passed by both the courts below being legally unsustainable, be quashed and set aside and application for discharge made by the petitioners may be allowed and they may be ordered to be discharged from the false accusation levelled against them. 9. The aforesaid arguments were rightly counterverted by Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for Respondent no.1-State, by pointing that as per well settled legal position, each counter case is required to be decided on the basis of material collected in it and de horse material collected in the sister case. Mr. Mirza. learned APP was very much right in submitting that recourse to the medical certificates of petitioner nos.2 and 3 in another course could not have been made for the purpose of deciding question of discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Mirza, learned APP, by drawing attention to specific provisions contained in said section, submitted that the same would be wholly permissible regarding the aspects upon which question of discharge was required to be considered. The bare perusal of the said provisions fully supports such submission canvassed. 10. On the said backdrop and now considering the order impugned, the discussion made in paragraph 8 reveals that the trial court duly considered the relevant provisions under which the application was made i.e. Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The discussion made in paragraph 10 reveals that the trial court having duly considered the aspects connected with the incident in question for which the report was lodged and the crime was registered. In paragraphs 11 and 12, the trial court has taken into consideration the other documents, which were rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P. being extraneous for consideration of the question involved before the trial court. In paragraphs 11 and 12, the trial court has taken into consideration the other documents, which were rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P. being extraneous for consideration of the question involved before the trial court. After considering the further matters recorded in paragraph 13, the same makes it abundantly clear that the trial court had duly considered the material available against the petitioners in the charge sheet. 11. Resultantly, it is difficult to accept that the question involved in an application made before the trial court, was not considered on the basis of material upon which the same is required to be considered as per provisions of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order rejecting an application for discharge does not reveal any error, much a less any error apparent on the record or any illegality committed by the trial court. Having regard to the same, the challenge given to the order of rejection of the application of discharge order by the trial court and maintained by the Court of Sessions fails, as no case is made out warranting an interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The criminal writ petition deserves to be and accordingly stands disposed of. 12. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears proper to give the direction to the trial court to expeditiously dispose the case. The trial court shall make best endeavour to dispose the case as early as possible. 13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Ordered accordingly.