- (1.) The State of U.P. has filed the present revision under section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code) against the order dated 15/16 -11 -1984 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal under section 239 of the Code in a warrant case by which the opposite parties have been discharged for the offence under Ss.409, 420, 468, 471, 34 and 109 of the Penal Code.
(2.) BRIEF account of the events leading to the present application is that in a warrant case under Ss. 409, 420, IPC. etc. triable by a Magistrate under Chapter XIX (Nineteen) by chance on behalf of the State nobody was present and even though a number of material existed on the record, the order of discharge was passed. Shri Harihar, Prasad Tripathi, the learned counsel for the State urged that the impugned order of discharge under S.239 was erroneous, inasmuch as it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to have considered the police report and other documents, sent under S.173, and only after such considerations and making such examination, if any, of the accused and after giving prosecution an opportunity of being heard, if it appears that the charges against the accused were groundless, in other words if there was no material or admissible evidence for presuming that the accused have committed an offence, only in that event an order of discharge could be passed. The learned Magistrate has not passed the order consistent with the provisions of Ss.239 and 240 of the Code. Reliance was placed on R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1986 SC 2045 : (1986 Cri LJ 1922), Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar, AIR 1980 SC 52 : (1979 Cri LJ 1390) and State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 : (1977 Cri LJ 1606).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties urged that under section 239 of the Code the impugned order has been passed after perusing relevant records. No ground has been made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this court.;