The court must determine if there exists a prima facie case for framing charges without delving into the probative value of evidence at the discharge stage.

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

Crl.R.P No.1350 of 2025 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2026 O R D E R The Revision Petitioner challenges the order dated 12.11.2025 in C.M.P No.2436/2025, an application seeking discharge filed under Section 239 Cr.PC, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C No.124/2019. He is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506(i) of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case as narrated in Anx.A5 order in CMP No.2436/2025 reads thus:

“On 09.02.2019, at about 10.00 a.m., the defacto complainant, along with his sons, was present at the Hon'ble Family Court, Kollam, for handing over the seven-year-old son of his late daughter to the petitioner, as per the interim order of the Hon'ble Family Court. After handing over the child to the petitioner, the child expressed reluctance to go with him. The petitioner allegedly pinched the child, causing him to cry. When the defacto complainant questioned this act, the petitioner shouted, saying, “I will beat and kill my son. Who are you to question me? You are the only barrier to getting custody of my child,” and thereby threatened to kill the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner beat the defacto complainant on his chest, pulled him, and attempted to hit him with a stone. When the younger son of the defacto complainant tried to intervene, the stone fell on his foot, causing injury to his foot and head.”

3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 239 Cr.PC.

The learned Magistrate dismissed the application holding that the prosecution prima facie established the ingredients of the offences alleged.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no materials to establish the offences alleged.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that the prosecution records prima facie reveal the ingredients of the offences alleged. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the Trial Court are the questions to be considered at the time of trial.

7. Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with discharge and framing of charge.

8. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when “the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless.”

9. The primary consideration at the stage of framing charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case. The probative value of the materials on record is not to be gone into at this stage.

10. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [ (2008) 2 SCC 561 ] while considering the nature of evaluation to be made by the Court at the stage of framing of charge held thus:-

“11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the Accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founde