BEEVI Vs. ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners (accused 2 and 3 in C. C. No. 131/98 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate Court, Kadungalloor) were discharged by the learned Magistrate on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against them. Challan has been laid against the revision petitioners and accused Nos. 1 and 4, after conducting investigation by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadungalloor under S.420 read with S.34 IPC.

(2.) First respondent filed a complaint against the accused persons before the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate Court, Kadungalloor alleging commission of offence under S.420 read with S.34 IPC for registering a case and investigation. As stated above, the police, after investigation, laid charge against the accused persons under S.420 read with S.34 IPC. Learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the materials placed before her by the prosecution, discharged accused Nos. 2 and 3 holding that no prima facie case was made out against them.

(3.) The order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate was called in question by the de facto complainant before the Sessions Court, Thrissur and the learned Sessions Judge interfered with the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to frame charge against accused Nos. 2 and 3 also. It is against that order passed by the learned Sessions Judge the petitioners have come up before this court seeking to set aside the order exercising the powers of this court under S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.