At the stage of framing of charge, the court is only required to consider whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondent.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of the orders dated 15.2.2014 and 11.12.2014 passed by the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi and the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Varanasi respectively, in terms of which the application of the petitioner seeking discharge was rejected and the revision filed thereagainst was also dismissed.

3. Upon the matter being taken up, on 06.02.2015, the parties were referred to mediation. The order sheet indicates that as per the report received from the mediation centre dated 09.08.2019, the mediation was completed but no agreement could be arrived at between the parties.

4. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

5. Upon an order passed on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., filed by the respondent no. 2, a first information report was registered on 16.09.2006 as Case Crime No. C-33/06 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. The investigation was concluded and a final report dated 05.11.2006 was submitted. The respondent no. 2 submitted a protest petition on 12.09.2008 whereupon the learned Magistrate rejected the final report and registered Case No. 112 of 2012. The complainant and the witnesses were examined under Sections 200 and 202 and the petitioners were summoned to face the trial.

6. An application for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. was moved which was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi vide order dated 15.02.2014. The revision filed thereagainst was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge in terms of judgment and order dated 11.12.2014. Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders the present petition has been filed.

7. The principal ground raised in the petition is that the evidence on record does not disclose that any offence is made out against the petitioners and the courts below have failed to consider the facts of the case and the material evidence while rejecting the discharge application moved by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and that the entire proceedings are aimed at causing harassment to them.

8. The aforementioned contentions have been controverted by the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondent and the counsel for the respondent no. 2 by submitting that at the stage of proceedings under Section 245 the Magistrate is only required to consider the evidence prima facie and is not required to go into the evidence in full details. It is submitted that the order passed by the courts below do not suffer from any error or illegality and that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions the relevant statutory provision may be adverted to. For ease of reference Section 245 is being reproduced below:-

"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 unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless."

10. In a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate may under Section 244 take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. It is at this stage, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, if the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made which, if unrebutted, would warra