- (1.) HEARD Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists; Sri Durga Prasad, learned counsel for O.P. No.2; Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A. and perused the records.
(2.) CONSIDERING the nature of the order that is being passed as also the ground on which it is being passed, I do not consider it necessary to call for a counter affidavit. The learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant are also agreeable for disposal of this revision straightway to avoid further delay in the proceeding.
(3.) THE instant revision has been filed challenging an order dated 17.4.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Court No.10), Jhansi in Case No.5123/2014, under Section 498 -A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Jhansi, whereby an application seeking discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and non -bailable warrant issued against the revisionists. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that while passing the impugned order the learned Magistrate has not at all adverted to the materials available on record in the case diary as to whether there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused and has straightway rejected the discharge application without assigning any reason on the ground that defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. It is submitted that the discharge is to be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 239 Cr.P.C, which provides that if upon considering the police report and the document sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. It is also submitted that while considering the discharge application it was obligatory on the part of the court below to record its satisfaction that from the materials available in the police report there was sufficient ground to frame charge against the revisionist.;