Hon’ble Surendra Kumar, J.—Heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri A.K. Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant revision has been preferred by the accused persons, who are revisionists herein, against the order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 372 of 2009, Mohd. Nazir v. Salim Khan and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi, whereby the application of the revisionists praying for their discharge under the aforesaid offences has been rejected. Thus, the impugned order of dismissal of the application of the revisionists praying for discharge is under challenge in this revision.

3. The relevant facts are that the complainant Mohd. Nazir Khan, who is opposite party No. 2 herein, filed the said complaint in the aforesaid Court. Original number of complaint was 3588 of 2009 which was renumbered as 372 of 2009 with certain allegations. The learned trial Court after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the relevant witnesses, summoned the revisionists under the aforesaid offences, on finding prima facie evidence against them. It was just thereafter that the accused persons appeared in the trial Court and then moved the application for discharge which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 19.1.2010. The order dated 19.1.2010 was challenged by the revisionists in this Court by way of filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 4009 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 10.2.2010 passed the following order :

“Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A., it is directed that in case the applicants move a discharge application before the Court concerned, through their counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of law.

Till the disposal of the discharge application, bailable warrant/N.B.W., if any, issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance.”

With the above direction, this application is finally disposed of.”

4. Thereafter the revisionists moved the application praying for their discharge under the aforesaid offences stating that there is no prima facie evidence or case against them for framing charge. The complainant, who is opposite party No. 2 herein, filed objections against the discharge application saying that there is sufficient and prima facie evidence for framing charge against the accused persons. The learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 23.10.2010, after hearing both sides and going through evidence on record, rejected the said application with the observation that the accused persons were summoned under the aforesaid offences on finding a prima facie case against them and right of the complainant to lead his evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. has not started till now. The learned trial Court by the impugned order again found that there is sufficient material and evidence against the revisionists to frame charge and there is no evidence for discharging them.

5. The main submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the revisionists have right under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. to move application at any time praying for their discharge and the Magistrate can allow the application for discharge after recording reasons, if he considers the charge to be groundless. It is true that the Magistrate is competent to discharge any person, if he considers the charge to be groundless.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that after appearance of the accused persons in the trial Court, the trial has not been proceeded at the instance of the accused persons and they are insisting upon thei