A Magistrate cannot refuse to discharge an accused person under Section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the charges against the accused are groundless and there is no evidence to support the allegations.

1. This is a petition under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders dated May 11, 1965, passed by Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi directing the issue of process to compel the appearance of the petitioners as accused under Sections 447, 379, 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A prayer for revision (under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) of the order of the trial court dated December 6, 1965, refusing to discharge the petitioners under Section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which orders have been upheld in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, on March 1, 1966, has also been added to the petition.

2. The criminal proceedings are an outcome of a dispute between Mahant Santokh Dass, who claims to be an occupancy tenant of the entire land comprised in Khasra No. 129, Civil Station, Delhi, on the one hand and the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Sis Ganj, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, who claim to be the owners of that property, on the other hand. Gurdial Singh, Santokh Singh and Tara Singh petitioners have been brought into the picture as they are respectively the Manager, Secretary and Sewadar of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee named above, the last named being a Sewadar of Gurdwara Majnu Tila, Civil Lines, Delhi, which Gurdwara is admittedly situated on a part of Khasra No. 129. Mahant Abhey Das, the plaintiff-respondent, has claimed to be the general attorney of Mahant Santokh Das aforesaid. It is admitted that the dispute to the ownership of at least some part of the land in question was the subject-matter of a civil suit which was filed by Bawa Santokh Dass on August 26, 1955, for a declaration to the effect that he was in possession of the land measuring 27 Bighas and 8 Biswas falling in Khasra No. 129 as a Dholidar and as an occupancy tenant and for a permanent injunction restraining the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee aforesaid from interfering with his possession and from building any structure on the said land. The date of institution of the suit has been taken by me from the judgment of the trial Court in that suit, Suit No. 388 of 1955, which has been placed on record of this case in the trial Court by the complainant.

3. In the suit filed by Mahant Santokh Dass, issue No. 2 was to the following effect "Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land on the date of institution of the suit and the suit can lie in the present form?" While discussing the subject-matter of issue No. 2 of the Court of Shri R. L. Lamba, Sub Judge 1st Class Delhi, in its judgment dated April 24, 1961, whereby it decreed the suit of Mahant Santokh Dass, held inter alia as follows :-

"The plaintiff does not appear to have done anything physically with the land in dispute and as plaintiffs physical possession is not proved but since he is the Dholidar, his possession shall have to be presumed as the land is Banjar and it has not been cultivated or taken possession of by any party."

From the above-mentioned observations in the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, it is apparent that the plaintiff could not prove himself to have been in actual physical possession of the land in dispute even in the said civil suit. The Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the civil suit to the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. By judgment dated July 17, 1963, Shri P. N. Thukral, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, framed two additional issues in the case and remitted the same for report to the trial Court:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is the Chela of Bawa Gopal Dass deceased and is entitled to succeed this estate? "Whether plaintiff is the occupancy tenant of the land in dispute?"

It was during the pendency of the appeal of the Gurdwara Committee after the order of the Additional District Judge calling for a report of the trial Court on the above-quoted two issues that the complaint dated June 15, 1964, which has given