Hon’ble Het Singh Yadav, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 9.10.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly on the application of the revisionists/accused purported to have been moved under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) for discharging them.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record.

The short question that falls for determination in this revision is-whether the application of the accused moved under Section 245(2) of the Code to discharge them as the charge against them is groundless, can be dismissed on the ground that the summoning order challenged by the revisionists/accused has been dismissed by the revisional Court.

2. The question arises in the following backdrop :

The complainant/respondent No. 2 moved the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate, was treated as complaint case. The Magistrate upon examining the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code and further being satisfied with an inquiry conducted in terms of Section 202 of the Code, issued process against the revisionists for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The revisionists challenged this order in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bareilly. However, the revision was dismissed. Thereafter, the accused/revisionists moved an application under Section 482 of the Code in this Court for quashing the summoning order as well as the order of the revisional Court. This Court, however, vide order dated 13.9.2013 finally disposed of the application so moved by the accused/revisionists with the direction to the Court below that in case the accused move an application under Section 245(2) of the Code before the Judicial Magistrate concerned within 30 days of the order, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. Accordingly, the accused/revisionists moved application under Section 245(2) of the Code before the Magistrate concerned alleging that the charge against them is groundless. The Magistrate, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the order of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code challenged by the accused in revision has been confirmed by the revisional Court and, thus, the contention of the accused that the charge against them is groundless, has no merit. The accused/revisionists have again challenged this order in this Court.

Chapter XIX of the Code:

Trial of warrant cases by a Magistrate is divided into two categories : (A) cases instituted on a police report; (B) cases instituted otherwise than on police report.

Manifestly, the accused/revisionists have been summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. triable as warrant case by a Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has issued process against the accused/revisionists under Section 204 of the Code and, therefore, the case is instituted otherwise than on police report. Thus, the procedure laid down in Part-B of Chapter XIX of the Code will be applicable.

Before discussing the legal issue involved in this case, it would be expedient to go through the Chapter XIX, Part-B of the Code, particularly Sections 244, 245 and 246 which read as under:”

244. Evidence for prosecution.

(1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

245. When accused shall be discharged.

(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebut