ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. Order in CMP No.3958/2024 dated 05.10.2024 in CC No.544A/2019 on the files of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur is under challenge in this revision petition filed under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on admission. 3. In this matter, the prosecution filed Final Report alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A, 294(b), 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') as well as under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short 'the K.P.Act' hereafter). 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that earlier the petitioners herein had filed Crl.M.C. 112/2019 before this Court and this Court disposed of the same as on 13.08.2024 with liberty to the petitioners to file discharge petition before the trial court raising the contentions raised in the Crl.M.C. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CMP No.3958/2024 before the Magistrate Court, seeking discharge, but the learned Magistrate after addressing the plea of discharge, by a considered order, dismissed the application finding that prima facie, case is made out against the accused to go for trial for the offences under Sections 354 A(1) (iv), 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 120(o) of K.P.Act. At the same time the petitioners were discharged for the offence under Section 294 (b) read with Section 34 of IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, finding of the Magistrate while dismissing the discharge petition is erroneous and the same is liable to be interfered. It is argued that offence under Section 354-A of IPC would not get attracted against a woman. The said aspect is ignored by the trial court. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor while opposing interference of the order disallowing discharge, vehemently arugued that while disposing of Crl.M.C.No.112/2019 as per order dated 13.08.2024, this Court allowed the petitioners to file a discharge petition before the trial court and such an order was passed because this Court found that on merits that quashment sought for in the Crl.M.C. could not be allowed. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate after addressing the contentions raised by the petitioners at length, disposed the discharge application and the same is perfectly in order and the same does not require any interference. 6. Repelling the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this court not either allowed or disallowed the prayer for quashment and there is no finding in the order regarding the same. 7. Adverting to the rival arguments the questions arise for consideration are: 1) When this Court disposes a Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings, without allowing the prayer and directing the petitioners to file discharge petition, whether it amounts to denial of the relief of quashment ? and 2) Whether the order impugned is liable to be interfered? 8. In order to address the first question, I am inclined to extract the order of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.112/2019 dated 13.08.2024. Paragraph No.2 onwards of the order read as under: “2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the party respondent, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have to file appropriate discharge petition before the trial court raising the contentions raised in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case. If such a petition is filed, there can be a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispense with the presence of the petitioner till discharge petition is considered. Therefore this Crl.M.C is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The petitioners are free to file discharge petition before the trial court raising all the contentions raised in this Crl.M.C within 30 days from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this order, if charge is not framed. (b) Once such a discharge petition is received, the learned Magistrate will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the prosecutor concerned as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the discharge petition. (c) If such a discharge petition is filed as directed above, the learned Magistrate will not insist the personal appearance of the petitioners till discharge petition is considered. (d) All the contentions raised by the petitioners in this Crl.M.C are left open and the petitioners are free to agitate the same before the trial court. (c) If such a discharge petition is filed as directed above, the learned Magistrate will not insist the personal appearance of the petitioners till discharge petition is considered. (d) All the contentions raised by the petitioners in this Crl.M.C are left open and the petitioners are free to agitate the same before the trial court. (e) The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the trial court, forthwith.” 9. On perusal of the order, this Court disposed of the Crl.M.C. with directions holding that the petitioners were free to file discharge petition before the trial court raising the contentions raised in this Criminal Petition. The other directions are pertaining to consideration of this matter on filing discharge petition. On perusal of the order in Criminal M.C.112/2019, it is crystal clear that this Court was not inclined to allow the quashment prayer on merits though not stipulated so in specific words and accordingly the remedy by way of filing discharge petition before the trial court was relegated. Therefore, while disposing a criminal M.C. seeking quashment of the proceedings by relegating the parties to file discharge petition, no doubt, the same is denial of the relief of quashment as the quashment prayer could not be allowed on merits. 10. Coming to the order impugned, the same seems to be an order partly allowing the discharge petition for the offences under Secton 294 (b) read with Section 34 of IPC and partly disallowing the prayer for discharge in respect of offences under Sections 354 A(1) (iv), 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 120(o) of K.P.Act. The relevant portion of the order is as under: “….after hearing both sides, I am of the finding that, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, for offences punishable u/s. 354 A(1)(iv), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. As stated, accused are discharged for the offence punishable u/s. 294(b) r/w 34 IPC. Since, the claim of the accused in the petition, is to discharge them, for all the offences, this petition stands dismissed.” Therefore, the order of the Magistrate in the concluding paragraph seems to be not proper and it should have been an order partly allowing the discharge petition and partly dismissing the same. 11. Since, the claim of the accused in the petition, is to discharge them, for all the offences, this petition stands dismissed.” Therefore, the order of the Magistrate in the concluding paragraph seems to be not proper and it should have been an order partly allowing the discharge petition and partly dismissing the same. 11. Reverting to the discussion, as I have already pointed out, the learned Magistrate considered the discharge petition and thereby an order running into 19 pages has been passed addressing meticulously the ingredients to attract offences specifically. The learned Magistrate also extracted the relevant statements of victim and witnesses to hold that prima facie the offences under sections 354 A(1) (iv), 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 120(o) of K.P.Act are made out. It is true that, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, only a man can commit an offence under Section 354-A of IPC and the same was not properly addressed by the learned Magistrate. But the order would depict that the learned Magistrate considered the question within the ambit of Section 34 of IPC and held that the 2nd petitioner had also committed offence under Section 354A(1)(iv) read with Section 34 of IPC prima facie. In this regard it is settled that only a man can commit an offence under Section 354 A of IPC, therefore the learned Magistrate is directed to consider this aspect as against the 2nd respondent while framing charge. Thus it appears that the learned Magistrate meticulously analysed the points raised by the petitioners at length and finally found that prima facie offences are made out warranting trial while dismissing the petition for the offence under Section 294(b) read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, the impugned order is interfered directing the Magistrate to consider as to whether offence under Section 354A of IPC would attract against the 2nd petitioner, a woman while framing charge. That apart, it is clarified that the order impugned is to be read as an order partly allowing and partly disallowing the discharge plea, as discussed in paragraph 10 herein above. 12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of as indicated above. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court concerned for information and further steps.