JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. :—Leave granted : Heard counsel for both the parties.

2. The appeal arises from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court (Reported in 1992 Cri LJ 3788) quashing the charge framed by the learned Magistrate.

3. A complaint was filed by the appellant against the three respondents herein under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. After receiving the evidence of the prosecution as contemplated by Section 244, the learned Magistrate framed the charge against the respondents under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. While framing the charge, the learned Magistrate has recorded his reasons therefor. In this order, he referred to the objections raised by the accused and his reasons for rejecting the same. The learned Magistrate observed:

"(O)n going through the evidence adduced before Court by the complainant at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there exist grounds to frame charge against A. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 500, I.P.C." The first respondent preferred a Revision (Criminal Revision Petition No. 104 of 1989) before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hubli against the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision observing that inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has framed the charge on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the complainant, oral and documentary, and on being satisfied that there was a prima facie case made out against the accused, his order is not liable to be interfered with in Revision. He observed that a Revisional Court can interfere with the order of the trial Magistrate framing charges only where it finds that the order of the trial Magistrate is illegal, capricious or perverse. Thereupon the first respondent approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for the quashing of the charge. The learned single Judge allowed the petition on the following basis (1992 Cri LJ 3788, paras 26 and 27):

"From the discussion made above, it has to be said that the approach of the Courts below in ordering to frame charge against the petitioner and the other two accused for an offence punishable under Section 500, I.P.C., is the resultant of non-application of mind to the material available on record and also resultant of incorrect exercise of jurisdiction conferred. The Courts below should have borne in mind that a person can be charged only when the allegations alleged against him are established prima facie and not otherwise, because in criminal cases the courts must be very cautious and careful before proceeding to frame charge as unnecessary framing of charge on the one hand may result in affecting the persons liberty and on the other hand cause continuous and unnecessary harassment, as it has

From the allegations made in the complaint and the intention to prosecute the accused by pursuing complaint the material placed on record and the information gathered at the trial it is clear that it is a matter of mere prestige for both the parties who according to their own version belong to different political faiths. It is not a genuine case of one making any imputation against the other or the other being defamed or his reputation lowered in the estimation of the public. This prolonged and protracted litigation and harassment to both the parties would have below ended in the beginning itself if the Courts below had taken into consideration the effect of section 245, Cr.P.C., and its applicability to the necessary material on record keeping in mind the of the complaint, the admissibility of the documents in evidence and the circumstances and context in which the alleged imputations were made by the petitioner."

4. The learned Judge quashed the charge not only respect to the first respondent-accused, who was the petitioner before him, but also with respect to respondents 2 and 3 (accused 2 and 3 respectively), who had neither filed a Revision before