1. Whether the order of the learned Magistrate discharging the respondents/ accused invoking the power under S.245 Cr.P.C. is correct? This is the short question arising for consideration in this revision.

2. The complainant's husband is facing indictment in a prosecution under S.302 I.P.C. The gist of the allegations against him in the said case is that he, along with others, trespassed into the residential building of a neighbour and caused the death of one Sabu. The complainant is the daughter of the uncle of the deceased. She had married out of her caste. The accused are all relatives of the deceased. The first accused is his brother, the second accused his mother, the third accused his brother-in-law and the 4th accused his sister. The incident in which Sabu met with his death occurred on the night of 11.7.1997. That incident was at about 10 p.m., according to the prosecution. The complainant's husband was taken into custody on the same night.

3. More than two months after the said incident, in which Sabu met with his death, the complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palai. In the complaint she alleged that on that night at about 9 p.m. she was called by the said deceased Sabu to go to his house. The purported purpose was to attempt to settle the disputes between the two neighbours in the presence of the uncle of the complainant. According to the complainant, she obliged and proceeded to the house of Sabu. After reaching there she found that the uncle, who allegedly was available there, was not present there. It dawned on her that the attempt was to pressurise her and to compel her to subscribe her signature to some documents. She refused to oblige. She was wrongfully restrained. She was criminally intimidated. She cried aloud. Hearing her cries, some persons from outside had allegedly entered the house after breaking open the door of the house. In the melee she some how escaped from that house and rushed to her house. It is her case in the complaint that the accused persons are responsible for perpetrating such crimes on her in the house of the deceased Sabu. Along with the deceased they had indulged in criminal acts, she alleged. The obvious suggestion, though not specifically urged, is that Sabu must also have suffered injuries in that melee.

4. Sworn statement was taken and the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under S.203 Cr.P.C. A revision was filed before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge by order dt. 26.7.2001 in Crl. R.P. No.46 of 1998 set aside the said order of dismissal and directed the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and to proceed further. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate under S.244 Cr.P.C. - at the pre-charge stage - examined the complainant as PW.1, her mother as PW.2 and an alleged independent witness as PW.3. In an attempt to explain the long gap of time between 11.7.1997, the date of incident and 18.9.1997, the date of the complaint before the learned Magistrate, the complainant produced Ext.D1, a medical certificate.

5. PWs.1 to 3 were subjected to cross examination by the accused. They took the stand that no incident as alleged had taken place at all and that PW.1, the complainant, is attempting to bail out her husband from the inconvenient situation in which he finds himself in the prosecution for murder initiated against him and others. They contended that the complainant was advancing a totally improbable and artificial version. The parties were at logger heads. There were disputes between them. Admittedly, there was very strong enmity between them. In these circumstances the evidence of PW.1 that she had gone to the house of the deceased on that night for the purpose of settlement of civil disputes is totally improbable, artificial and unacceptable. Reliance was placed on Ext.D1 to contend that the version of PW.1 that she was called to the house of the deceased for the purpose of settlement of the disputes and