JUDGMENT

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Leave granted.

2. The judgment dated 12.01.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.R.C. No. 1181 of 2015 and M.P. No. 01 of 2015 is called in question in these appeals. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has discharged Smt. S. Selvi-accused no.2 (respondent no.1 herein) from CC No. 229 of 2013 for the offence punishable under section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Respondent no.2 herein/defacto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that he entered into an agreement for sale in connection with purchase of property situated in survey no. 171/2A, Thalambur village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Chennai to the extent of 2.94 acres for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,14,50,000/- belonging to Smt. S.Selvi on 5.7.2007, with her power of attorney Mr. Jothimani-accused no.1 who is the son-in-law of Smt. S.Selvi. The defacto complainant is stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 05.07.2007 towards advance; Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by way of cheque on 21.07.2007 and Rs. 50,00,000/- on 06.08.2007. The balance of sale consideration, though were allegedly tried to be paid by the defacto complainant repeatedly, both the accused refused to receive the same and to carry out the terms of the agreement. During the year 2011, accused no.1 issued three cheques for repaying the amount received from the defacto complainant and all of them were returned `unpaid' by the bank. Hence for the purposes of recovery of amount, the defacto complainant visited the house of respondent no.1 on 20.09.2011 and at that time he was threatened with dire consequences, beaten and pushed out of the house of accused/respondent no.1 by her and accused no.1. A complaint came to be lodged on 21.09.2011 before the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai. Since no action was taken by the Commissioner of Police, the defacto complainant preferred Criminal O.P.No. 17945/2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On being directed by the High Court vide its order dated 07.09.2012, the complaint came to be registered by Central Crime Branch, Team-III, Chennai as C.C.B. Crime No. 484 of 2012 on 18.09.2012. The police after investigation laid a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Poonamallee on 01.10.2013, which came to be registered as CC No. 229/2013.

4. Smt. S.Selvi-accused no.2 argued for discharge before the trial Court. Such arguments were turned down by the trial Court and the application filed by her under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for discharge was dismissed on 05.11.2015. As against such order, Smt. S.Selvi approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.R.C. No. 1181 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015. The High Court set aside the order of the trial Court and discharged Smt. S.Selvi. The order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.

5. The appellant's counsel taking us to the complaint, material on record and the order of the High Court contends that the High Court is not justified in discharging the accused by evaluating in detail the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. He contended that it is not open for the High Court to assess the evidence as is generally done by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of criminal case. According to him, the High Court should have affirmed the judgment of the trial Court since the material on record is sufficient to frame charge against the accused.

6. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the High Court is justified in discharging the accused; if two views are equally possible and if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him raises some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. According to him, the material on record may disclose some suspic