JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment dated 19.04.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6494 of 2017 in C.C.No.298 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, whereby the respondents 1 and 2 herein were discharged from the case under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P.No.6494 of 2017 in C.C.No.298 of 2016, whereby the respondents 1 and 2 herein were discharged from the case under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein were filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.6494 of 2017 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge them from the case and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, has allowed the said petition and thereby discharged both the accused 1 and 2/respondents herein. The same is under challenge by the de facto complainant.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the third respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 476 [Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another], wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

“While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charges against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted. Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. If two views are possible and materials indicate mere suspicion, not being grave suspicion, against accused then he may be discharged. The court has to consider broad probabilities of case, total effect of evidence and documents produced before it. The court should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impermissible to have roving enquiry at the state of framing of charge.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568 [State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi], wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

“Trial court whether can consider any material filed by the accused. At the said stage it can consider only the material produced by the prosecution. No provision in Cr.P.C. grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the said stage. That right is granted only at the stage of trial. Accused cannot at the stage of framing of charge invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to prove his innocence.”

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 relied on a decis