This revision petition has been filed challenging the
dismissal of an application filed under Section 245 of Cr.P.C by the
accused persons/revision petitioners in C.C.No.188/2011 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam.
2. I have heard Sri. C. Rajendran, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri. B. Krishna Mani, the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri. Sangeetha Raj N.R., the
learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The case arose from a private complaint filed
under Section 200 read with Section 190(a) of Cr.P.C. After
conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the learned
Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 427, 447, 434, 500, 506(i) and 143
read with Section 149 of the IPC. However, the learned
Magistrate did not record the evidence produced in support of the
prosecution as contemplated under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. The
question of discharge arises only after the evidence is recorded
under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the
2025:KER:59793
learned Magistrate, the application for discharge is premature.