IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Magistrate's decision to discharge the accused for certain IPC offences, affirming that evidence did not support house trespass but did support threats under IPC Section 506(ii).

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), challenging discharge of the accused/respondent herein for the offences 294(b) and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by the trial court, under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is the complainant in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/original complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused.

3. As discernible from the records, acting on a private complaint filed by the original complainant under Section 190 r/w 200 of Cr.P.C. (CMP No. 2302/2015), the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, summons was issued and the accused entered appearance. Subsequently, he was released on bail. Then the learned Magistrate proceeded with the case as mandated under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. since the case involved an offence necessitating warrant trial which was instituted otherwise than a police report (i.e. from a private complaint). Thereafter, the complainant got examined as PW-1 under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the learned Magistrate discharged the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 294(b) of IPC by invoking power under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. while holding that charge should be framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the finding of the learned Magistrate that charge for offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC alone was liable to be framed is erroneous. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/original complainant, though offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not made out from the materials as per the ratio of the decision in Latheef vs. State of Kerala, 2014 (2) KHC 604, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance for the offence under Section 448 of IPC instead of Section 447 of IPC since offence under Section 448 of IPC is made out from the materials, including the evidence given by PW-1. Therefore, the order would require quashment. It is submitted that in the available evidence, including the evidence given by PW-1, the offences under Sections 448 and 506 (ii) of IPC are fully made out and therefore, the order is to be interfered to hold so.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Magistrate appraised the materials, including the evidence given by PW-1 under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. to hold that the accused is liable to be prosecuted, after framing charge under Section 506(ii) of IPC alone and not for any other offences. Therefore, the order does not suffer from any illegality to revisit the same.

6. In the instant case, Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 447 of IPC, when a warrant case was instituted otherwise than a police report, that is based on a private complaint lodged by the complainant. Thereafter, accused was summoned and he entered appearance. Then the learned Magistrate stepped into Section 244 of Cr.P.C. since it is mandatory as per Section 244 of Cr.P.C. that the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution before start of trial. The procedures after taking evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. have been stated under Sections 245 and 246 of Cr.P.C. and Section 244 of Cr.P.C. provides as under:

“244. Evidence for prosecution

(1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

(2) The Magistrate may, on the