This revision is preferred against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4734 of 2015 in C.C.No.229 of 2013 on 05.11.2015.

2. Second respondent/de facto complainant preferred a complaint informing that the petitioner's son-in-law/A1 entered into a sale agreement on 05.07.2007 towards sale of property in Survey No.171/2A, Thalambur Village, Chengelpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 2.94 acres, for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,14,50,000/-. Initially, the de facto complainant/second respondent has issued a cheque dated 05.07.2007 in a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to first accused towards advance and subsequently, a further sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- had been paid. When the de facto complainant approached the accused to pay the balance consideration and get the sale deed registered, the accused refused to do the needful. Towards repayment, the first accused issued three cheques, which when presented for payment were dishonoured. Aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant visited the house of the accused on 20.09.2011 and demanded return of money. However, they instead of returning the money, beat and had the de facto complainant pushed out of the house through their henchmen. Upon the complaint of the de facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.484 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent for offences u/s.406, 420 and 506(i) IPC. Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet informing commission of offences u/s.406, 420 and 506(i) r/w 34 IPC, the case was taken on file in C.C.No.229 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee. Petitioner/A2 filed C.M.P.No.4734 of 2015 seeking discharge. Under the impugned order, the Court below dismissed such petition on the reasoning that the petition was filed at the stage of questioning/framing of charges and hence, the same was a pre-mature one. The Court below has further held that the allegations levelled against the petitioner can be tested only during a full-fledged trial. Hence, this revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for first respondent and learned senior counsel for second respondent.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the second accused while the first accused is her son-in-law. The complaint allegation is that the first accused entered into an agreement for sale with the de facto complainant/second respondent on 05.07.2007. In pursuance of such unregistered agreement, the de facto complainant/second respondent parted with monies. Thereafter, after four years, the first accused issued three cheques dated 05.08.2011 and 01.09.2011 towards repayment. Such cheques were dishonoured. It is alleged that de facto complainant/second respondent went to the house of both accused on 20.09.2011 and both accused as also their henchmen divested him of the bag containing original documents, issued threats and drove him out. De facto complainant/second respondent preferred a complaint with the Commissioner of Police on 21.09.2011 and an enquiry was ordered thereupon. De facto complainant/second respondent moved Crl.O.P.No.17945 of 2012 seeking a direction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. towards registration of a case. A case was registered on 18.09.2012 in Crime No.484 of 2012 on the file of first respondent for offences u/s.406, 420 and 506(i) IPC. Of thirteen witnesses examined four witnesses spoke of the occurrence involving both accused on 20.09.2011. Till such date, no role in the transactions stand assigned to this petitioner. Alleging the occurrence of 20.09.2011, the petitioner stands falsely implicated in the charge sheet. Petitioner had neither been called for enquiry nor was her arrest sought pending investigation. Petitioner, on receipt of documents u/s.207 Cr.P.C., had sought discharge in C.M.P.No.4734 of 2015. The Court below wrongly had dismissed such petition informing that the petition for discharge was pre-matur