1. The petitioners are the accused in a case in which the allegation is that they have committed the offences under Sections 427 and 447 IPC. The proceedings are sought to be quashed in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Earlier they had filed Crl. M.C. No. 5516 of 2013 to quash the proceedings in the trial court. By Annexure-A5 order this court dismissed the Crl. M.C. giving them liberty to move the court concerned seeking discharge. Accordingly, they filed an application to discharge them. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. The petitioners pray for quashing the final report and the order of the learned Magistrate.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public prosecutor.

4. It may be noted that the offences which the petitioners are alleged to have committed fall under Sections 427 and 447 IPC only. It is a summons case. In the impugned order the learned Magistrate has observed:

“The Hon'ble High Court vide the said order has not taken note of the alleged offences in the case. As such the case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/s. 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC. The present case is a summons case. As such there is no provisions for discharge under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. in the summons trial under Chapter-XX of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am unable to invoke any provision of Cr.P.C. to consider the present petition. Moreover, all the contentions taken by the petitioner in this petition could be raised at the time of trial and the petitioners have sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence on aspects raised in the present petition. Therefore, I find that the present petition cannot be considered at this stage and it is only liable to be dismissed.” (sic)

5. The learned Magistrate should not have made the observation that this court failed to take note of the fact that the case is a summons case and not a warrant case.

6. This court in the order passed in Crl. M.C. No. 5516 of 2013 observed that the petitioners may file an application to discharge them. In the Code of Criminal Procedure the word discharge appears not only in different Sections in Chapter XVIII relating to Trial Before a Court of Session and Chapter XIX relating to Trial of Warrant Cases by Magistrates but also in Section 123 in Chapter VIII relating to Security for Keeping the Peace and for Good Behaviour and two Sections in Chapter XXXIII relating to Provisions as to Bail and Bonds. Section 123 provides for discharge of a person imprisoned under Section 122. Section 442 of the Code speaks of discharge of accused from custody on execution of a bond and Section 444 speaks of discharge of sureties. When the court discharges a person, it only means that he has no obligation to appear before it in the said proceedings. When the presence of a witness present in the court is no longer necessary, he is discharged by the court. To discharge only means to release. When an accused is discharged in a summons case on the finding that the materials relied on by the prosecution do not disclose any offence, it only means that he is released from the obligation to appear in the court in that proceedings.

7. The following observation of the Supreme Court in Cricket Association of Bengal and Others vs. State of W.B. and Others, AIR 1971 SC 1925 is relevant. Even if the order of discharge is to be treated as passed in a case where summons case procedure is to be followed, it was within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and hence it cannot be characterized as either illegal or not justified.

8. In Kamala Rajaram vs. State of Kerala, 2005 (3) KLT 617 this court has observed as follows:

“It is a summons case. Procedure prescribed under Chapter XX has to be followed. There is no question of framing any charge at the stage of S.251 Cr.P.C. There is only the requirement of reading over the particulars of offence to the indicted. A formal framing of charge is not required; but certainly the particulars of