Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in S.T.No.1586/2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Pathanamthitta, inter alia, challenges Annexure 4 order dated 16.3.2010 as per which even though the learned Magistrate was convinced that there could not be any successful prosecution of the petitioner, the Magistrate, however, found himself powerless to discharge the accused and drop the proceedings which was the prayer made in Annexure 3 petition registered as Crl.M.P.No.125/2010. 3. Admittedly the trial before the court below is a summons trial and there is, therefore, no question of framing the charge or discharging the accused (vide Thomas v. Varghese (2008(3) KLT 44). Instead of framing charge, the substance of accusation is to be read over to the accused and his plea is to be taken. The substance of accusation has not been read over to the accused and, therefore, the trial has not started. If there are no particulars of the offence to be read over to the accused, then the Magistrate cannot take the plea of the accused by reading over the substance of accusation. In such a case the Magistrate will be entitled to drop the proceedings at that stage. It is only after the particulars of offences have been read over to the accused that the trial begins and thereafter, Magistrate will be precluded from prematurely terminating the proceedings in the light of the decision in Adalath Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004 KHC 1137). Thus, termination of the proceedings at the threshold after the appearance of the accused and before the commencement of trial is permissible in a summons case. Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala (2005(3)KLT 617), is authority for the the position that Magistrate has the power to drop or discontinue the proceedings, before the particulars of the offence have been read over to the accused. Annexure 4 order is accordingly set aside and CMP No.125/2010 shall be disposed of afresh in the light of what has been stated above. Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010.