A petition for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. is valid if prima facie evidence is present to proceed against an accused, not requiring detailed examination of the materials.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed challenging Annexure IX order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam (for short, the trial court) in CMP No.4066/2017 in C.C.No.146/2017, dismissing a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the accused and the 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.146/2017. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 465 and

468 of the IPC .

3. The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent were legally wedded husband and wife. A child was born in the said wedlock. Dispute arose between them which led to the institution of various legal proceedings before various courts by each other. It is submitted that now the marriage has been separated by a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Pala.

4. A criminal case was pending against the petitioner and his relative under Sections 294(b), 323 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC before the trial court. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.1561/2016 before this Court to quash C.C.No.1665/2014. Along with the said Crl.M.C., the petitioner produced an agreement purportedly executed between him and the 2^nd respondent. According to the 2^nd respondent, the said agreement is a concocted document. It is alleged that the signature found in the said agreement was forged by the petitioner. Alleging so, the 2^nd respondent preferred a private complaint against the petitioner as CMP No.1259/2016 before the trial court. Annexure VII is the said complaint. The trial court forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police registered Annexure VIII FIR against the petitioner under Sections 465 and 468 of the . After investigation, Annexure I final report was filed against the petitioner alleging the above said offences before the trial court. The trial court received the final report on file and took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the trial court and filed a petition for discharge as CMP No.4066/2017. The trial court after hearing both sides dismissed the said petition as per Annexure IX. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

5. I have heard the petitioner Sri. Shiju K.

Raghavan, who appeared in person, Sri. Julian Xavier, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri. E.C. Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The petitioner submitted that a close reading of the private complaint, final report, statement of the witnesses and the documents on record would reveal that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against him. The petitioner further submitted that the prosecution is hit by Section 195 (1) (b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. The trial court ought to have discharged him, submitted the petitioner. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent as well as the learned Prosecutor submitted that there are prima facie evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the crime and the trial court has rightly dismissed the petition for discharge. The prosecutor further submitted that Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C is not at all attracted.

7. It is settled that at the time of consideration of a petition for discharge, the court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The court is not supposed to examine and address in detail the materials on record. At that stage, the court is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible. I went through Annexure I final report. The 2^nd respondent as well as CW2 and CW3 has stated that their signatures found in the disputed agreement are forged