JUDGMENT : The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.01.2018 by which their application under section 245 Cr.P.C has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, on the allegations that the accused persons breaking open the doors entered the house of the complainant, assaulted him, snatched the golden chain, Rs. 50,000/- and one wrist-watch, Complaint Case No. 401 of 2013 was filed. During enquiry the complainant has examined three witnesses and a report from the police was called for. After considering the allegations in the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, evidence of the enquiry witnesses and the police report, the application filed by the petitioners under section 245 Cr.P.C has been dismissed. 3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that there are serious contradictions in the evidence laid during the enquiry in the complaint case; (i) place of occurrence has been changed, (ii) name of all the accused persons were not disclosed at the first instance, (iii) name of the accused-Ravi Kumar has not been spoken about by the enquiry witnesses, (iv) presence of the complainant at the place of occurrence is doubtful, and (v) in any event he is not an eye-witness, and, therefore, they must be discharged under section 245 Cr.P.C. 4. Assailing the legality of the impugned order dated 24.01.2018, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate discloses complete non-application of mind in as much as the learned Magistrate has not even indicated the offence for which the accused persons have been charged. 5. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter-XIX lays down the procedure for trial of the warrant cases by the Magistrate; section 238 to section 243 deal with the cases instituted on a police report whereas section 244 to section 247 deal with the cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. The petitioners have been made accused in the complaint case and, therefore, trial in the case shall be governed under section 244 Cr.P.C onwards. In a complaint case an accused has no locus-standi before summons/warrant is issued to him (refer, “Chandra Deo Singh Vrs. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another” reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430 ). The petitioners have been made accused in the complaint case and, therefore, trial in the case shall be governed under section 244 Cr.P.C onwards. In a complaint case an accused has no locus-standi before summons/warrant is issued to him (refer, “Chandra Deo Singh Vrs. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another” reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430 ). At the stage under section 204 Cr.P.C all that the Magistrate is required to look into is, whether the materials prima-facie constituting offence have been brought on record or not [refer, “Smt. Nagawwa Vrs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others” reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736 ]. No doubt, under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be groundless but sub-section 2 to section 245 Cr.P.C is an exception to the main provisions under sub-section (1) which provides that if upon taking all the evidence referred to under section 244 – under section 244 the prosecution is required to lay evidence in support of its case – the Magistrate considers that no case against the accused has been made out and the evidence which, if unrebutted, would not warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. At this stage, this is not the providence of the Magistrate to sift the evidence, probe into contradictions in the evidence and then come to a conclusion that the evidence brought on record is not sufficient for conviction. The expression “if unrebutted” is an ample indication that at this stage the evidence read as a whole, on its face, if discloses that prima-facie case for the alleged offence has been made out against the accused in that case the accused shall not be discharged. The petitioners have tried to contend that there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the enquiry witnesses, police report submitted during enquiry does not disclose the offence of snatching and theft and, in fact, it was the complainant-side which were the aggressors. All these issues and the alleged improvements/contradictions in the evidence of the enquiry witnesses and/or material on record are the matters for trial. This is the stage of ex-parte evidence when all that the Magistrate is required to look into is whether a prima-facie case is made out or not. All these issues and the alleged improvements/contradictions in the evidence of the enquiry witnesses and/or material on record are the matters for trial. This is the stage of ex-parte evidence when all that the Magistrate is required to look into is whether a prima-facie case is made out or not. The contention that the Magistrate has failed to record the provisions of law, that is, the offence for which the petitioners are liable to be tried is bereft of substance. It was the application filed by the accused persons seeking their discharge under section 245 Cr. P.C and this is not the stage when the Magistrate must record for which offence the accused are charged with. That stage would come next. That is under section 246 Cr.P.C that the charge is framed against an accused. 6. Viewed thus, and for the aforesaid reasons finding no merit in this criminal revision petition, Cr. Rev. No. 529 of 2018 is dismissed.