Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Process under Sections 498-A, 452. 323. 506 IPC & Section 3/4 D.P.Act has been issued against the applicants in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2248 of 2010. The applicants filed an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate seeking discharge from the trial. The Magistrate while considering the application recorded that the application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. After perusing the record, summons have been issued and application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The allegations leveled against the applicants in the complaint are that opposite party No. 2 is married to applicant No. 1 and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are her mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively. Ever since the inception of marriage, the opposite party No. 2 was harassed by the applicants’ family by demanding more dowry. It is also alleged that opposite party No. 2 was thrown out of the house as she failed to fulfill the dowry demand of the applicants by not bringing a motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. It is further alleged that on 12.5.2010, the applicants came to the parental house of opposite party No. 2 and demanded dowry. However, on their refusal, they beat the mother, father and opposite party No. 2. They threatened her that in case, the demand of dowry is not met, they will not spare them. Initially, a FIR was lodged with the Police concerned but they refused to register the same. Thereafter, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the concerned Magistrate which was treated as complaint and the Magistrate, thereafter, recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses and process has been issued against the applicants to face trial for the said offences.

3. The applicants filed an application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the trial on the ground that no case is made out against them. It is stated in the application that the story of the complainant was improbable and no prudent person can believe the same. The trial Court after hearing the parties on the discharge application recorded its finding that there was contradiction in the statement of the complainant and the complaint filed by her. In the complaint, it is stated that the parents of the complainant were beaten by the applicants. However, in her statement recorded by the Magistrate, she has not deposed anything in this behalf. She has stated that she was throttled by the applicants and threatened that in case, the demand of dowry is not met, they will not spare her. However, in her statement, she has only stated that she was threatened only. She had suffered injuries, however, she was not medically examined by the doctor. The explanation put forth by her is that it was not possible for her to get medically examined as she could not afford it. Despite, these discrepancies in her statement and the complaint, the Magistrate proceeded to summon the applicants.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In a warrant case, the procedure provided is contained under Chapter-19 of the Code. Section 239 Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate is empowered to discharge a person after report is submitted under Section 173 provided that he is of the opinion that the charges are groundless, he may discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. Under Section 244 Cr.P.C. when a case is instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. after taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate considers for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted, would not warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistr