ORDER : The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 12.06.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in G.R. No.578 of 2009 (T.R. No.391 of 2014) whereby and whereunder a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”), has been rejected. 2. On the basis of a written report of the informant Anita Pathak, Madhupur P.S. Case No.248 of 2009 was instituted on 09.12.2009 with the allegation that she is one of member of an organization known as “Society for advancement in education, Dehradun” and on 27.11.2009 one Bal Krishna Tiwari (the present petitioner) resident of Kanpur threatened her on telephone that he will not allow her to run the said society and if she intends to run the society, she will have to pay Rs.10,00,000/- and that on 03.12.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. he again came to her residence at Madhupur and misbehaved with her and conveyed her that he will get her college “Asia School of Engineering and Management” being run through the above society closed. It is also alleged that the said Bal Krishna Tiwary again came to her house on 05.12.2009 and misbehaved with her and extended threat that he will not allow to run her college. 3. It appears from the record that after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 384/504 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the court took cognizance of the offence whereafter the petitioner filed a petition for his discharge under Section 239 of the Code in the court below but the same was rejected vide order dated 16.10.2012 holding that on the basis of material available on record, I find prima facie case for framing of charge under Sections 384/504 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision being No.2 of 2013 before the Sessions Judge, Deoghar but the revision was also dismissed. Whereafter the present petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No.882 of 2013 in this court which was remanded to the court below vide order dated 28.10.2013 with the direction to pass fresh order on discharge petition in accordance with law. It also appear that the court of learned Judicial Magistrate by order impugned considering the prima facie evidence and sufficiency of material to frame charge again rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge. Hence, this revision. 4. Mr. It also appear that the court of learned Judicial Magistrate by order impugned considering the prima facie evidence and sufficiency of material to frame charge again rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge. Hence, this revision. 4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted on its face value, no offence is made out under Sections 384/504 of the Indian Penal Code and none of the ingredient responsible to constitute offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is available on record to show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged offence. It was also submitted that it is a clear case of malicious prosecution and faulty investigation. Learned counsel further relying upon the judgments of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad V. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Another; (1989) 1 SCC 715 submitted that Section 227 which confers power to discharge an accused was designed to prevent harassment to an innocent person by the arduous trial or the ordeal of prosecution. It was also submitted that the court while dealing with the petition for discharge has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming commission of offence by the accused and the court has also to see whether material brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with the trial and since during investigation no material has been collected showing any ingredient responsible to constitute offence under Section 384 I.P.C., the order impugned rejecting the prayer for discharge is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel Mr. Prashant Pallav appearing for the opposite party no.2 (the informant) submitted that there is ample material on record to show a strong motive for commission of crime and the court below was justified in dismissing the petition for discharge holding sufficiency of material against the petitioner to frame charge. 6. Before adverting to rival contentions, I may briefly notice the scope and ambit of powers of trial Judge under Section 239 of the Code. 6. Before adverting to rival contentions, I may briefly notice the scope and ambit of powers of trial Judge under Section 239 of the Code. It is well settled that the trial court while considering a petition for discharge for framing of charge is not called upon to embark upon enquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed further or not. The Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi; 2000(1) PLJR SC 79 has held that the High Court or the Magistrate are not supposed to adopt a strict hypertechnical approach to sieve the complainant through colander of finest gauzes for deciding the ingredients of offence with which the accused is charged. Such an endeavour may be justified during trial but certainly not during the stage of investigation. 7. At the stage of framing charge, the court has only to see whether F.I.R. or the documents accompanying the final report under Section 173 of the Code including the statements recorded by the prosecution under Section 161 of the Code discloses the commission of any offence against the accused. The power of a Magistrate under Section 239 of the Code is similar to the power of Sessions Court under Section 227 of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI; (2010) 9 SCC 368 in Paragraph 19 held as under: “19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.” 8. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.” 8. From the ratio decided by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the above two cases, it is clear that at the initial stage, the court has to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging from there taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients to constitute the alleged offence the court is bound to frame charge. 9. Obviously to determine a prima facie case or grave suspicion depends upon the facts of each case and at this stage the court has not seen as to whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 10. In the light of the aforesaid principle it is necessary to examine whether or not in the present case the court below was justified in refusing to discharge the petition. I have gone through the entire case diary and find that the witnesses examined in different Paragraphs of the case diary like 10, 15, 30 and 57 have prima facie disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence and all the above Paragraphs have also been considered by the court below in the order impugned. 11. In a case Rajiv Thapar & ors V. Madhu Lal Kapoor; (2013) 3 SCC 330 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the same issue of discharge in a complaint case, lodged at the instance of father of a deceased girl that he suspects that his daughter had been poisoned, has held in Paragraph-28 as follows:- “This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations leveled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has leveled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) leveled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations leveled, trial must be held”. 12. In the light of the above discussions and upon analyzing all the materials available on record, I am satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case and grave suspicion against the petitioner for proceeding in respect of charges alleged and the court below has rightly refused to discharge the petitioner. 13. In the light of above discussion, I find no plausible ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this revision application is, hereby, dismissed.