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