Suneet Kumar, J.

1. This revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 2 March 2016, passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 4270 of 2008 (Shyama Devi Vs. Manoj and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Daraganj, District Allahabad, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge application filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

2. The facts would reveal that the revisionist was summoned in a complaint under Section 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, upon recording statement of the complainant under Section 200 and of his witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The revisionist while assailing the summoning order would contend that the statement recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C is not reliable and false statement. Learned Magistrate rejected the application recording in the impugned order that prima facie, the ingredients of the offence is disclosed from the statements, further, sufficiency of the evidence is not to be gone into at the stage of summoning.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the case set up by the opposite party is false case and would contend that the fact of the case is entirely different from that set up in the complaint.

4. In Sunil Mehta and another Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2013 (9) SCC 209, the question that fell for determination was as to whether deposition of complainant and his witnesses recorded under Chapter XV of the Code before cognizance is taken by the Magistrate would constitute evidence for the Magistrate to frame charges against the accused under Part B of Chapter XIX of the Code.

5. The essential difference of procedure in the trial of warrant case on the basis of a police report and that instituted otherwise than on the police report, is particularly marked in Sections 238 and 239 Cr.P.C. on one side and Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C., on the other. Under Section 238, when in a warrant case, instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that he has been supplied the necessary documents like police report, FIR, statements recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all the witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution, as also the confessions and statements recorded under Section 164 and any other documents, which have been forwarded by the prosecuting agency to the Court. After that, comes the stage of discharge, for which it is provided in Section 239 Cr.P.C. that the Magistrate has to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and if necessary, has to examine the accused and has to hear the prosecution of the accused, and if on such examination and hearing, the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless, he would discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. The prosecution at that stage is not required to lead evidence. If, on examination of aforementioned documents, Magistrate comes to the prima facie conclusion that there is a ground for proceeding with the trial, he proceeds to frame the charge. For framing the charge, he does not have to pass a separate order. It is then that the charge is framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C. and the trial proceeds for recording the evidence. Thus, in such trial prosecution has only one opportunity to lead evidence and that too comes only after the charge is framed.

6. However, in a warrant trial instituted otherwise than on a police report, when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence, as may be produced in support of the prosecution. In this, the Magistrate may issue summons to the witnesses also under Section 244(2) Cr.P.C. on the application by prosecution. All this evidence is evidence before charge. If the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is no such case made out