Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 have called

in question the validity of the order dated 16.04.2022

passed by the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bangalore, whereby the application for discharge filed by

petitioners was dismissed.

2.

Without adverting to the facts of the case, the

legal contentions raised by Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior

counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the present

case is a case on the basis of a complaint wherein after

3

notice under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and evidence is led in, it

is only at the stage of Section 245 of Cr.P.C. the accused

can seek for discharge. It is pointed out that the admitted

procedure is that the evidence for the prosecution could be

led in terms of Chapter-XIX after notice to the accused and

subsequent to which stage of recording of evidence under

Section 244, accused can seek for discharge in terms of

Section 245 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the test

that is required to be answered is in terms of Section

245(1) "if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction". It is

further submitted that in terms of Section 246, when the

accused is not discharged and the Magistrate deems it fit to

proceed,