ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), challenging discharge of the accused/respondent herein for the offences 294(b) and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by the trial court, under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is the complainant in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/original complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused. 3. As discernible from the records, acting on a private complaint filed by the original complainant under Section 190 r/w 200 of Cr.P.C. (CMP No. 2302/2015), the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, summons was issued and the accused entered appearance. Subsequently, he was released on bail. Then the learned Magistrate proceeded with the case as mandated under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. since the case involved an offence necessitating warrant trial which was instituted otherwise than a police report (i.e. from a private complaint). Thereafter, the complainant got examined as PW-1 under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the learned Magistrate discharged the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 294(b) of IPC by invoking power under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. while holding that charge should be framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the finding of the learned Magistrate that charge for offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC alone was liable to be framed is erroneous. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/original complainant, though offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not made out from the materials as per the ratio of the decision in Latheef vs. State of Kerala, 2014 (2) KHC 604 , the learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance for the offence under Section 448 of IPC instead of Section 447 of IPC since offence under Section 448 of IPC is made out from the materials, including the evidence given by PW-1. Therefore, the order would require quashment. Therefore, the order would require quashment. It is submitted that in the available evidence, including the evidence given by PW-1, the offences under Sections 448 and 506 (ii) of IPC are fully made out and therefore, the order is to be interfered to hold so. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Magistrate appraised the materials, including the evidence given by PW-1 under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. to hold that the accused is liable to be prosecuted, after framing charge under Section 506(ii) of IPC alone and not for any other offences. Therefore, the order does not suffer from any illegality to revisit the same. 6. In the instant case, Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 447 of IPC, when a warrant case was instituted otherwise than a police report, that is based on a private complaint lodged by the complainant. Thereafter, accused was summoned and he entered appearance. Then the learned Magistrate stepped into Section 244 of Cr.P.C. since it is mandatory as per Section 244 of Cr.P.C. that the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution before start of trial. The procedures after taking evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. have been stated under Sections 245 and 246 of Cr.P.C. and Section 244 of Cr.P.C. provides as under: “244. Evidence for prosecution (1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. (2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.” Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ for short) is the equivalent provision corresponding to Section 244 of Cr.P.C. Section 245 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: “245. When accused shall be discharged: (1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. When accused shall be discharged: (1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.” Section 268 of BNSS is the equivalent provision corresponding to Section 245 of Cr.P.C. Section 246 of Cr.P.C. provides as under: “246. Procedure where accused is not discharged: (1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. (3) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. (4) If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claims to be tried or if the accused is not convicted under sub-section (3), he shall be required to state, at the commencement of the next hearing of the case, or, if the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks fit, forthwith, whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and, if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken. (5) If he says he does so wish, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and, after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall be discharged. (6) The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken, and after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall also be discharged.” Section 269 of BNSS is the equivalent provision corresponding to Section 246 of Cr.P.C. 7. (6) The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken, and after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall also be discharged.” Section 269 of BNSS is the equivalent provision corresponding to Section 246 of Cr.P.C. 7. On reading Sections 244, 245 and 246 of Cr.P.C. and Sections 267, 268 and 269 of BNSS, in warrant trial cases instituted otherwise than on police report, before framing charge against the accused, pre-charge evidence is mandatory. For this purpose, as per Section 244(2) of Cr.P.C. and under Section 267(2) of BNSS, the Magistrate may, on the application of prosecution, issue summons to any of the witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing. As per Section 245 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 268 of BNSS, if, upon taking all the evidences referred to, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge the accused. It is true that as per Section 245 (2) of Cr.P.C. and under Section 268(2) of BNSS, nothing in these Sections shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by the Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. 8. The procedure where the accused is not discharged is provided in Section 246 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 269 of BNSS. When the Magistrate is of the opinion that after taking the evidence that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. or under Chapter XX of BNSS, which such Magistrate is competent to try, the Magistrate shall frame a charge in writing against the accused and proceed with trial. Under Section 244(1) of Cr.P.C. and under Section 267(1) of BNSS, 'all such evidence does not limit to the witnesses mentioned in the list appended to the complaint, but it refers to any other witness or witnesses mentioned in a subsequent application filed before the discharge order is passed by the Magistrate. 9. Now the question to be considered is whether the evidence taken by the Magistrate is sufficient to attract offence under Section 448 of IPC apart from 506(ii) of IPC. 10. 9. Now the question to be considered is whether the evidence taken by the Magistrate is sufficient to attract offence under Section 448 of IPC apart from 506(ii) of IPC. 10. The evidence given by PW-1 under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. has been extracted by the learned Magistrate in paragraph No. 4 of the order and the same is as under: “4. PW-1 deposed that on 23.10.2014 at 4 pm in the evening while she was sitting inside her house, she heard a sound below. She looked out from her room. At that time she saw that Reveendra Panickar (accused), who is her neighbor, was measuring the property belonging to her. PW-1 further deposed that there were already existing disputes on the boundary of the said property. PW-1 further deposed that her father had already instructed her not to allow anyone to enter the property. PW-1 further deposed that she took photos on her mobile phone, from a distance of 100 meter. Then she came down to the sit out of the house and asked the accused not to measure. The accused did not listen to her, she again told the accused not to measure. At that time the accused angrily came forward towards her, hurled abuses at her and threatened her that he will kill her and her father. Several persons were witnesses to hurling of abuses by the accused. She became frightened when the accused came forward her. She ran inside the house and close the door.” 11. On evaluating the evidence given by PW-1 under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate discharged the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 294(b) of IPC. Going by the evidence discussed by the learned Magistrate, the specific version of PW-1 is that the accused hurled abuses against the defacto complainant and threatened her that he would kill her and her father. The further version of PW-1 is that when she came down to the sit out and asked the accused not to measure out the property, the accused angrily came forward towards her, hurled abusive words and threatened her. Under Section 448 of IPC, offence of house trespass is punishable. The offence of house trespass is defined under Section 442 of IPC and the same reads as under: “442. Under Section 448 of IPC, offence of house trespass is punishable. The offence of house trespass is defined under Section 442 of IPC and the same reads as under: “442. House-trespass - Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house-trespass.” 12. In the instant case, the evidence of PW-1 does not suggest that the accused entered into the building where PW-1 stood and therefore the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused contending that the magistrate went wrong in not taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC is found untenable. However, the ingredients to attract offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC are made out from the evidence and the learned Magistrate is right in holding that the charge for the said offence is liable to be framed to proceed further. Therefore, the order impugned does not require any interference. 13. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. 14. Interim order of stay granted by this Court stands vacated. 15. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps.