1. In view of the commonness of the issues involved in these Revision Petitions, they are taken up for joint consideration and disposal. The petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.137 of 2015 is the first accused in C.C.No.562 of 2005 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners in Crl.R.P.Nos.264 & 265 of 2015 are respectively the first accused in C.C.No.563 of 2005 and second accused in C.C.No.561 of 2005 on the files of the same court. They moved Crl.M.P.Nos.8867/2013, 8870/2013 and 8866/2013 in those calendar cases seeking their discharge. Those petitions were dismissed by orders dated 28.2.2014. The captioned Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order of dismissal passed in their respective petition for discharge. A bare perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that certain observations of this Court made in the orders in certain Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions moved by some of the accused in the aforesaid calendar cases, including the petitioners in Crl.R.P.Nos.137 and 264 of 2015, weighed with the court below in passing the said orders.

2. The petitioners are employees of the Aunducode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. They applied for salary certificates for the purpose of availing housing loans from Canfin Homes. Subsequently, salary certificates were issued to them for that purpose. A third party made a complaint of fabrication of false salary certificates alleging that in place of the actual salary drawn by each of the accused persons higher amounts were shown in their respective salary certificates and pursuant to the same separate crimes were registered against them and that ultimately led to the registration of the aforementioned calendar cases. In all those cases, the revision petitioners are charged for commission of offences u/S.120(b), 197, 198, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners in Crl.R.P.Nos.137 & 264 of 2015 had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.Nos.2318 & 2364 of 2006 respectively under S.482 Cr.P.C. taking up the plea that the final reports filed in the concerned crimes registered against them lack ingredients to attract the offences alleged against them. Evidently, the said Crl.M.Cs were dismissed by this Court by separate orders, produced as Annexure-A1in Crl.R.P.Nos.137 and 264 of 2015 without prejudice to the right of the said petitioners to argue for discharge under S.239, Cr.P.C. True that a perusal of Annexure- A1 in the aforesaid Revision Petitions would also reveal that at that point of time, this Court had declined to accept the arguments advanced by the petitioners and the learned Judge who considered the said Crl.M.Cs while dismissing them observed thus:-

“Having gone through Annexure A1 final report and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government Pleader and the first respondent, I am not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the petitioners since, prima facie I find that there are sufficient averments in the final report to frame charge for the offences alleged.”

3. A close scrutiny of Annexure-A1 would reveal that the learned Judge further went on to observe thus:-

“However, I am not expressing any opinion on merits as the petitioners have got a statutory right to seek discharge under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that it was not so far availed.”

4. Evidently, while dismissing the Crl.M.Cs as per Annexure-A1 order this Court directed to give opportunities to the petitioners to take up the plea of discharge under S.239, Cr.P.C. in an effective manner without being prejudiced by the observations as quoted above. I am constrained to take up such a view as in case of a finding to the contrary that there was sufficient grounds in the final report and materials appended therewith to frame charge under the aforesaid offences or in other words, that the report could not be said to be groundless there would not have been any reason and purpose for this Court to permit the petit