O R D E R

The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the case C.C.No.718/2011 pending in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha.

2. The case is one instituted upon the complaint filed by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to also as 'the complainant'). The offences alleged against the accused in the case are punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420, 468 and 120B I.P.C.

3. The petitioners shall be hereinafter referred to as the accused. The second accused is the wife of the first accused. The first respondent, the complainant, is the brother of the first accused.

4. The complainant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the first accused authorising him to deal with his property. The first accused executed a sale deed in favour of the second accused in respect of the property owned by the complainant by using the power of attorney. The crux of the allegations in the complaint is that, in that sale deed, instead of affixing the thumb impression of the complainant, the thumb impression of some other person was affixed. The other accused in the case are persons who had allegedly assisted the petitioners in the preparation and registration of the sale deed.

5. In the court below, the case had reached the stage of adducing evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 documents were marked on the side of the complainant.

6. The petitioners filed an application as

Crl.M.P.No.7257/2015 before the trial court seeking discharge. As per the order dated 10.12.2015, the learned Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid application.

7. The first and the second accused have filed this revision petition challenging the legality and propriety of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate, dismissing the application for discharge filed by them.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

9. At the time of the final hearing of the revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised only one contention before this Court. Learned counsel would submit that the first respondent had earlier filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha and the aforesaid complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code and the complaint filed in the present case is on the same set of facts as contained in the previous complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that, the complaint in the instant case, being the second complaint on the same set of facts, is not maintainable in law.

10. Learned senior counsel who appeared for the first respondent submitted that, as per the explanation provided to Section 300 of the Code, dismissal of a complaint does not amount to an acquittal for the purpose of that provision and therefore, the complaint in the present case is maintainable.

11. The submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties with regard to the earlier or previous complaint filed by the first respondent appear to be factually incorrect. Learned counsel for the parties have made available for perusal by this Court the copies of the two complaints filed against the petitioners by the first respondent. On a perusal of them, it is seen that the complaint filed by the first respondent in the present case is dated 20.06.2011. The complaint filed by the first respondent in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha is dated 01.06.2012 and it was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code on 01.07.2013. Therefore, it is evident that the complaint in the present case is not the second complaint but it is the first complaint. The second complaint is the one filed in the Cour