Judgment :- 1. The complainant in Calendar Case 126 of 1961 has filed this revision petition to quash the order of the District Magistrate of Quilon discharging the accused under S.253 (2), Cr. P. C. The complaint was for an offence of defamation under S.500 and 501 of the Penal Code, the allegation being that the accused had defamed him by publishing false imputations against him in the issue of the Malayalam paper 'Kaumudi', dated 24th September 1960. After the sworn statement was taken, the complaint was taken on file and process was issued to the accused. The case then underwent a number of adjournments as the complainant did not appear in court for his examination. Finally the case stood posted for hearing to 16th March 1962, on which date also the complainant absented himself. Witnesses were also not present. Adjournment was asked for but the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable cause for the absence of the complainant and discharged the accused under S.253 (2) on the ground that the charge levelled against the accused was groundless. It is the legality of this order that is questioned in this revision petition. 2. S.252 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the procedure in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, after the accused appears in court. The section enjoins the court to hear the complainant and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. S.253 (1) says that if upon taking all the evidence referred to in S.252, and making such examination, if any, of the accused, the Magistrate finds that no case is made out, he can discharge the accused. Then follows sub-section (2). It reads as follows: "(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless." So sub-section (2) enables the court in a proper case to discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case if the court considers the charge to be groundless. But this provision does not clothe the Magistrate with an arbitrary power of discharge. There must be grounds or material on record to come to the conclusion that no offence is made out. 3. But this provision does not clothe the Magistrate with an arbitrary power of discharge. There must be grounds or material on record to come to the conclusion that no offence is made out. 3. Decisions say that the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage, even before recording any evidence, if he is of opinion that the charge is groundless. Reference rutty be made to the decision in Chamarbaugwalla v. Ramachandra Rao (1957) II An. W. R.368. The head note reads: "The words 'at any stage' occurring in S.253 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code have a particular significance. Any bar in the way of a Magistrate discharging an accused before the whole evidence is placed before him, is removed by S.253 (2) of the Code. The Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint as being groundless and discharge the accused at any stage. The only essential for such an order is that he should record his reasons for doing so. It is abundantly clear that where allegations made by a complainant, taken at their face value and left unrebutted would constitute at best a ground for a civil suit, no criminal court would go on with the case but would leave the matter to be agitated in a civil court." 4. So the Magistrate may in suitable cases come to the conclusion that the charge is groundless even before he has heard the complainant under S.252. Such a case might well be one in which the Magistrate in issuing the process under S.204, Cr. P. C. mistakenly believed that an offence has been disclosed by the complaint and on the matter being brought to his notice when the case comes up for hearing, he sees his error and decides that, in fact, even if the allegations in the complaint are true, no criminal offence is disclosed or that sanction to prosecute is necessary to take cognisance of the offence which had in fact not been obtained. But where however, as in this case, the complaint does in fact disclose a prima facie case, the Magistrate cannot hold that the charge is groundless until the complainant has been heard. But where however, as in this case, the complaint does in fact disclose a prima facie case, the Magistrate cannot hold that the charge is groundless until the complainant has been heard. In such a case, if on the admission of the complainant when examined under S.252, it is seen that no criminal offence, has been disclosed the Magistrate would be at liberty to discharge the accused under S.253 (2) without calling upon the complainant to examine the rest of his witnesses. In the case in Pandit Shiv Datta v. Sood AIR. 1940 Lah. 40, His Lordship of the Lahore High Court held: " If the admissions of the complainant under examination under S.252, make it cleat not only that the facts set forth in the accused's petition are correct but also that, on the basis of those facts admitted by the complainant, no criminal offence has been disclosed, he is naturally at liberty to discharge the accused under S.253 (2) without calling upon the complainant to produce the rest of his evidence." Where a complaint prima facie discloses an offence, the Magistrate cannot hold the charge to be groundless unless he knows what is the sort of evidence that is going to be adduced by the complainant and his witnesses. He can judiciously come to such a conclusion only after he has ascertained from the complainant what is the nature of evidence he proposes to adduce. So the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused under S.253 (2) for the simple reason that the complainant was absent on the date of hearing (vide the decision in Uttamrao Shripat Bhutekar v. A. H. Bhutekar AIR. 1948 Nag. 341.) 5. The next question is whether a further inquiry is to be ordered in this case. Under S.259 Cr. P. C. where the complainant has not appeared and the offence is one which may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate can use his discretion and in a proper case, discharge the accused. In this instant case, the charge was under S.500 IPC. which is a non-cognizable offence and is one compoundable with the permission of the court and the Magistrate could justifiably have dismissed the complaint under S.259 Cr. P. C. I do not, therefore, think it necessary in the interests of justice to set aside the order of discharge and order further inquiry into the matter. which is a non-cognizable offence and is one compoundable with the permission of the court and the Magistrate could justifiably have dismissed the complaint under S.259 Cr. P. C. I do not, therefore, think it necessary in the interests of justice to set aside the order of discharge and order further inquiry into the matter. This will not prevent the complainant, if so advised, to file a fresh complaint.