ORDER : The Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused have focussed the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order in Cr.M.P.No.6242 of 2012 r/w 3032 of 14 in C.C.No.254 of 2011, dated 6.2.2015, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.6242 of 2012 r/w 3032 of 14 in C.C.No.254 of 2011, dated 6.2.2015 (filed by the Petitioner under Section 239(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure), had inter-alia observed the following: “It is unreasonable to found that the sale consideration in the sale deed was given in the alleged sale deed from the title deed of Ramalakshmi but in the name of accused A1 and A2. As per the Transfer of Property Act, the loan of mortgage by the title deed can not be given to the Third Party except the real title holder. It is pertinent to mention to see that by way of obtaining loan from the property of Ramalakshmi and that loan amount is given by as sale consideration to Ramalakshmi by accused A1 and A2. It is important to note that A1 and A2 have an official posting in the bank from which they obtained the loan. The disputed signature of Ramalakshmi in the sale deed and signature of Ramalakshmi was compared by the Forensic Except and he opined that the signature of Ramalakshmi in the sale deed is not tally with other signature of Ramalakshmi. At this stage, corroboration and propriety of the except opinion cannot be determined, unless it stands to the rest of trial upon considering all of the documents. This Court feels that there is strong suspicious of commission of the offence and the accused seems to have committed that alleged offence and all the grounds raised by the accused can be determined only during trial.” and consequently dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition. Being aggrieved against the order of dismissal, dated 6.2.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.6242 of 2012 r/w 3032 of 14 in C.C.No.254 of 2011, the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused have filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition, contending that the trial Court without considering the nature of the case, which is purely civil in nature, had dismissed the Discharge Petition by not applying its mind. 3. Being aggrieved against the order of dismissal, dated 6.2.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.6242 of 2012 r/w 3032 of 14 in C.C.No.254 of 2011, the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused have filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition, contending that the trial Court without considering the nature of the case, which is purely civil in nature, had dismissed the Discharge Petition by not applying its mind. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused urges before this Court that there is no contrary evidence against the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused for being involved in respect of the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC and therefore, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside, in the interest of justice. 4. Advancing her arguments, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused proceeds to take a stand that the main case of the Second Respondent/De-facto complainant is that her mother was impersonated by someone else at the time of registering the document before the Sub-Registrar and the signature found in the alleged sale deed was not that of her mother and the same was signed by someone else. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/petitioners/Accused vehemently contends that both in the complaint as well as in the charge-sheet, it was not mentioned by whom she was impersonated and in fact, the mother of the Second Respondent/De-facto Complainant is none other than the mother-in-law of the First Revision Petitioner/A1 and mother of the Second Revision Petitioner and Third Revision Petitioner, was identified by the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration by producing her Voter's Identity Card. 6. It is represented on behalf of the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused that the 'plea of impersonation' could not be raised and on that count also, the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from any legal infirmity. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused takes a stand that there is no specific allegation or evidence in the case that who had impersonated the said P.Ramalakshmi, wife of Late E.Padmanabhan, who had forged her signature. 7. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused takes a stand that there is no specific allegation or evidence in the case that who had impersonated the said P.Ramalakshmi, wife of Late E.Padmanabhan, who had forged her signature. 7. That apart, on behalf of the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused contends that even in the charge-sheet, it was mentioned that the charge-sheet was filed on the basis of the report of the Forensic Sciences Department which was given on the basis of the xerox copy with a registered document with unregistered document and further-more, the documents compared with are not contemporaneous and it is not admitted documents. In fact, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused is that there are no prima facie materials available against the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused to frame necessary charges against them and as such, they are legally entitled to discharged from the case. 8. Per contra, it is the contention of the Second Respondent/De-facto complainant that the trial Court at the time of passing the impugned order after assigning necessary reasons had felt that there was strong suspicion in respect of commission of the offence namely, that the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused might have committed the alleged offence and went to the extent of saying that all the points raised by the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused can be determined only at the time of trial of the case. 9. It is to be borne in mind that the application to discharge the accused in respect of an offence under Section 239 of Cr.P.C arise when the Learned Judicial Magistrate considers the charge against the accused concerned to be groundless one. No wonder, a detailed evaluation of materials or meticulous analysis of the possible defence need be undertaken by a court of law at the time of framing necessary charges. The term 'discharge' must be construed as surveillance of discharge relating to a specific offence for which the accused has been charged. If there are materials available on record to frame necessary charges, then the court of law is perfectly within its domain to frame necessary charges in respect of the concerned accused after applying its judicial thinking mind. 10. The term 'discharge' must be construed as surveillance of discharge relating to a specific offence for which the accused has been charged. If there are materials available on record to frame necessary charges, then the court of law is perfectly within its domain to frame necessary charges in respect of the concerned accused after applying its judicial thinking mind. 10. As far as the present case is concerned, this Court on going through the impugned order, dated 6.2.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.6242 of 2012 r/w 3032 of 14 in C.C.No.254 of 2011, is of the considered view that the trial Court had come to a conseanent conclusion that the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused might have committed the alleged offence etc., and the same in the considered opinion of this Court does not suffer from any material infirmities or patent illegalities in the eye of Law. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition fails. 11. In fine, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition by this Court will not preclude the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused to raise all the factual and legal pleas during conduct of the trial of case in C.C.No.254 of 2011 before the lower Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.