Heard the learned respective Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

3. The petitioner is the original complainant. He had filed complaint against the respondent no.2 herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 of the IPC, 468 of the IPC, 471 of the IPC and 477A of the IPC. The learned Magistrate ordered investigation into the matter, as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"]. After investigation, the Police filed a "C" summary report. On this, the learned Magistrate issued a notice to the complainant i.e. the petitioner herein, and then on 15-7-2010, issued process against the respondent no.2 by the following order:

"Charge sheet presented by P.S. Ambhore against accused. It be registered as a Regular Criminal Case. Hence, issue process against accused under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477A of the IPC."

The respondent no.2 then made an application for discharge contending that the charge against him was groundless. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 24-2-2011, discharged the respondent no.2, holding that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused (Respondent no.2).

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Criminal Writ Petition, but when the question of availability of an alternative remedy was raised, he withdrew the petition and made an application for revision before the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 20-3-2013, dismissed the said revision.

It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has now once again approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

4. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, the learned Magistrate was not entitled to discharge the respondent no.2 without hearing the petitioner i.e. the original complainant. A question of law is posed, namely, 'whether a Magistrate is bound to hear a complainant before discharging an accused'.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to go into that aspect of the matter. It is because, there are some obvious errors committed by the courts below at two different stages.

6. In the first place, while issuing process against the respondent no.2, the learned Magistrate referred to the "C" summary report as a 'charge sheet'. Undoubtedly, the Police had submitted a final report, but it could not be termed as a 'charge sheet'. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, nowhere uses the term 'charge sheet', but it is common knowledge that, when a final report discloses commission of an offence or offences by persons, then such final report is termed as a 'charge sheet'. Here, the report of the Police was that, there was no case for proceedings against the respondent no.2. Therefore, it could not have been termed as a 'charge sheet'.

7. In the second place, while allowing the discharge application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred to the provisions of Section 227 of the Code, which applies to the trials before the Court of Sessions. The relevant Section would be Section 239 of the Code, but instead of referring to Section 239, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred to Section 227 of the Code. The phraseology used in both the Sections is not identical.

8. In any case, in the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the parties do not seriously dispute that, the order issuing process against the respondent no.2 needs to be interfered with, and the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration of the "C" summary report. This course appears to be just and proper in the circumstances.

9. In the result, the order dated 24-2-2011, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seed, as also, the order dated 15-7-2010, passed by the Judicial