The standard of proof for framing charges in criminal cases is lower than that for conviction, allowing the court to uphold charges against an accused based on preliminary evidence.

O R D E R

The above criminal revision petitions are filed by the first accused and the complainant against the order in C.M.P No. 9227 of 2018 in C.C.

No. 1317 of 2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate III, Palakkad.

2. As per the impugned order, the trial court found that there is ground for presuming that the first accused committed the offence under Section 420 IPC and that there is no prima facie case against the second accused and therefore, the second accused was discharged under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C and the court proceeded to frame charge against the first accused for the offence under .

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective revision petitioners and the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant/revision petitioner argued that there is sufficient material for presuming that the second

2026:KER:20175 accused has committed the offence and the trial court is not justified in discharging the second accused. The learned counsel for the respondent/ second accused pointed out that in Exhibit P4 complaint to the Dy.S.P dated 03.05.2012, there was no specific allegation against the second accused and in the absence of a specific allegation against the second accused, the trial court rightly discharged her under Section 245 (1)

Cr.P.C .

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first accused argued that a perusal of the complaint and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 would show that the dispute is in connection with the amount borrowed by the first accused from the complainant and in the absence of sufficient material to arrive at a finding that the first accused dishonestly induced the complainant with an intention to cheat, the trial court ought to have discharged the first accused.

6. In the complaint, it is stated that because of financial problems, the complainant approached the first accused, who used to lend money to others for interest and then, the first accused came to the house of

2026:KER:20175 the complainant and after ascertaining her situation, persuaded her to avail a loan from KSFE by mortgaging her property. Thereafter, on 12.04.2010, when the complainant received the loan amount, the first accused, along with his wife, who is the second accused, approached the complainant and collected Rs.1,00,000/- with a promise to return the same within one week.

7. It is stated that the accused persons dishonestly induced the complainant by representing that they own house and property at Palakkad and thereafter on 18.10.2010, the accused persons again borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and only subsequently, the complainant came to know that the accused persons cheated several persons in similar manner. It is also specifically alleged that the first accused was having the intention to cheat the complainant when he obtained the amount by dishonestly inducing the complainant.

8. Before the trial court, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked. When the evidence of the complainant and the

2026:KER:20175 witness was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the accused has chosen not to cross examine PWs 1 and 2.

9. As noticed earlier, in Exhibit P4 complaint dated 03.05.2012 preferred by the complainant to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, there is no specific allegation against the second accused and only because she was also present along with first accused, when he collected the money, the same cannot be accepted as sufficient ground for presuming that she has committed the offence under Section 420 IPC and in that circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court discharging her under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C.

10. In view of the specific alleg