This revision is directed against the order dated 25.6.82 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur, whereby the accused petitioner's application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereafter the 'Code' was rejected and bailable warrant of arrest against the accused petitioners were directed to be issued. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the opposite party No 1 had filed complaint dated 10.1079 against the accused petitioners on the allegations that even though the petitioners had entered into agreement for supply of 20,000 pieces of blankets to the complainant, the petitioners had supplied only 960 pieces of inferior quality with the result that the complainant had inc­urred losses, and it was contended that the petitioners had committed the offence of 'cheating'. The learned magistrate had examined the complainant and on being satisfied had issued process against the petitioners. The accused petitioners had appe­ared through a learned counsel and had prayed for exemption of their presence. The matter was taken to the learned Sessions Judge, who by order dated 25.4.81 had rejected the petitioners' prayer against cognizance having been taken and the issue of process. 3. The complainant had filed some documents in support of his case and the petitioners on 30 3.82 filed an application under Section 245(2) of the Code, wherein they referred to the documents filed by the complainant, and it was submitted that the genuineness of the documents was not disputed by the petitioners. The application was opposed by the complainant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the prayer. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come to this court, and Shri T.C. Khatri, learned counsel appearing on their behalf has submitted that the learned CJM without considering the documents filed by the complainant of which the genuineness had not been disputed or had been accepted by the petitioners, failed to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 245(2) of the Code in rejecting the application. 5. Shri S.N. Sarma learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposite party has been heard. 6. 5. Shri S.N. Sarma learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposite party has been heard. 6. It is true that the petitioners had not appeared before the trial court in person, but they had made appearance through their learned counsel, and in my opinion it shall not be reasonable or proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to hold their personal non-appearance against the petitioners, in so far as their prayer under Section 245 (2) of the Code was concerned. Section 245 (2) of the Code reads : "Sec. 245(1).... (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. " It should be clear from the above that this power can be ex­ercised by the Magistrate at any stage, i. e. even after the learned Magistrate had on satisfaction entertained the complaint, the matter could still be considered by the court to see whether the charge in the complaint was groundless. 7. While it may be said that at the initial stage when the court considered the complaint and recorded the statement of the complainant that the court was satisfied and had acco­rdingly issued process, it was still open to the learned magi­strate, more so after the documents had been filed, particul­arly in this case, to consider the documents and take the view that whether or not the complaint was groundless. It may be noted in the instant case the allegations related to non-supply of blankets as per contract, i. e. even though the petitioners had agreed to supply 20,000 blankets, they had supplied only 960 blankets and had not supplied the rest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents filed by the complainant, the genuineness of which had been accepted by the petition­ers, who even had referred to the said documents in application under Section 245 (2) of the Code, were important material evidence which was avilable to (be court and which should have been considered by the learned magistrate before disposing of the application under Section 245 of the Code. 8. It may be noted that Section 294 of the Code was intro­duced in the Code of 1973 regarding admissibility in evidence of documents without necessity of formal proof. 8. It may be noted that Section 294 of the Code was intro­duced in the Code of 1973 regarding admissibility in evidence of documents without necessity of formal proof. Section 294 of the Code reads : " 294. No formal proof of certain documents : (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of ev­ery such document shall be included in a list and the pr­osecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. ( 3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code wi­thout proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed, Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be prated." In the instant case in view of the above provision the do­cuments filed by the complainant the genuineness whereof was accepted could be read in evidence without proof and this ev­idence was available to the court for consideration of the peti­tioner's prayer in application in the Section 245(2) of the Code, The impugned order does not disclose that the learned magistrate bad considered the documents at all. In my opinion, the learned magistrate ought to have considered the said documents before giving a decision on the aforesaid application, par­ticularly because the case related to breach of contract and the petitioners' assertion was that it was a dispute betw­een the parties of a civil nature. Considering the nature of the case in the complaint and the petitioner's version, the said documents filed by the complainant himself were relevant evidence which required to be considered for proper decision of the petitioner's application under Section 245 (2) of the Code. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to sustain the impugned order. 10. The petition is allowed, The impugned order is set aside. The application under Section 245 (2) of the Code by the petitioners is remanded to the learned CJM for conside­ration and orders in light of the observation made above. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to sustain the impugned order. 10. The petition is allowed, The impugned order is set aside. The application under Section 245 (2) of the Code by the petitioners is remanded to the learned CJM for conside­ration and orders in light of the observation made above. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, it is furthur dire­cted that the learned magistrate shall give opportunity to the parties to support their respective contention on the application under Section 245 (2) of the Code. The parties, are directed to appear before the C JM on J.I 1.89. The records of the court below shall be transmitted immediately.