ORDER : S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, is filed by the defacto complainant with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the Court of LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.471 of 2021. 2. Respondent no.1 herein was charge sheeted by CKA Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 204, 466, 473, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC in Crime No.470 of 2017. After the charge sheet was filed, the case was numbered in C.C.No.24859 of 2018 before the Court of I ACMM, Bengaluru. In the said proceedings, respondent no.1 had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, seeking discharge, which was rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no.1 had preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.471 of 2021 before the Court of LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which was allowed by order dated 25.03.2023 and assailing the same, the defacto complainant is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that charge sheet material makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner for standing trial for the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate was therefore justified in rejecting the discharge application filed by the accused. The Revisional Court has erred in allowing the revision petition on the ground that there is a civil dispute between the parties. 4. Per contra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent no.1 submits that Power of attorney has been executed on 25.03.2011 only for the purpose of rectifying the defect in the release deed and correction of a boundary of the property. Rectification deed was executed on the strength of the power of attorney on 16.06.2011. After a civil dispute arose between the parties, belatedly a false complaint has been filed. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM PRAKASH CHADHA V. STATE Of UTTAR PRADESH - in (2024) 10 SCC 651 and DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL V. STATE Of GUJARAT & ANOTHER - (2019) 16 SCC 547 in support of his arguments. 5. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM PRAKASH CHADHA V. STATE Of UTTAR PRADESH - in (2024) 10 SCC 651 and DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL V. STATE Of GUJARAT & ANOTHER - (2019) 16 SCC 547 in support of his arguments. 5. Learned HCGP for respondent no.2 however has argued in support of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and submits that the Revisional Court was not justified in allowing the discharge application. He submits that the notary has clearly stated that the seal and signature found in the General Power of Attorney does not belong to him, which prima facie makes out a case as against the accused. He also submits that accused who had undertaken to produce the original of the General Power of Attorney dated 25.03.2011 had subsequently not cooperated before the police for which an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner herein is the direct brother of respondent no.1. It appears that release deed was executed between the two brothers and their mother on 03.06.2009. The alleged power of attorney dated 25.03.2011 was executed by the petitioner herein in favour of his mother for the purpose of correction of the boundary of the property which was allotted to respondent no. 1 herein under the release deed dated 03.06.2009. According to the petitioner, the said power of attorney dated 25.03.2011 is a forged and fraudulent document and he had never executed such a document. The alleged general power of attorney is not a registered document. But it was notarized before R.S. Vijay, Notary public, Bengaluru. The statement of R. S. Vijay was recorded by the Investigation Officer in the present case and he has clearly stated that the seal and signature found in the alleged general power of attorney dated 25.03.2011 does not belong to him. He has also produced his notary ledger before the police to show that there is no entry in his ledger book with regard to the execution of alleged general power of attorney. 7. He has also produced his notary ledger before the police to show that there is no entry in his ledger book with regard to the execution of alleged general power of attorney. 7. Material on record would also go to show that statement of respondent no.1/accused was recorded by the police during the course of investigation and in his statement he has undertaken to produce the original of the General Power of Attorney dated 25.03.2011, which he allegedly had pledged with a private financier for the purpose of availing loan. According to the prosecution, subsequently respondent no.1 /accused had failed to cooperate with the investigating officer and the original of the power of attorney was not produced by him before the police. Respondent no.1/accused is the beneficiary of the general power of attorney which was allegedly executed by the petitioner herein and on the strength of the said general power of attorney a rectification deed was executed in favour of respondent no.1 on 16.06.2011. 8. At the time of considering an application for discharge, the trial Court is required to apply its mind to the material available on the record to find out whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case as against the accused for standing trial to the charge sheeted offences. In the case on hand, the allegation against respondent no.1/accused is that he had created the fraudulent and forged general of power of attorney dated 25.03.2011 and based on the same, Rectification deed dated 16.06.2011 was executed in his favour. The alleged power of attorney is a notarised document and the concerned notary has stated before the police that the seal and signature found in the document does not belong to him. His ledger book was also produced before the police to show that there is no entry with regard to execution of the general power of attorney in his office on 25.03.2011. 9. Merely for the reason that there is some civil dispute between the parties it cannot be said that a criminal case cannot be entertained when there are prima-facie materials to show that accused has committed the alleged offences. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of KAMALADEVI AGARWAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS - (2002) 1 SCC 555 10. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of KAMALADEVI AGARWAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS - (2002) 1 SCC 555 10. At the time of considering an application for discharge, the Trial Court cannot hold a mini trial and dwell upon the merits of the case. The Revisional Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and virtually has proceeded to examine the charge sheet material on its merits, which is not permissible in law. 11. The judgment in the case of DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL (supra) was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where based only on the confession statement of co-accused, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner therein. Except the confession statement of the co-accused, there was no material collected by the police and since the Court found that there was no material to corroborate the statement of the co-accused, it was held in the said case that accused was rightly discharged by the Trial Court. The said judgment therefore cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. In the case of RAM PRAKASH CHADHA (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos.22 and 23 has observed as follows. "22. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488] , after extracting Section 227CrPC, this Court in paras 10 and 11 held thus: (SCC pp. 401-402) “10. … If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.” 23 . In para 13 in P. Vijayan case [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488] , this Court took note of the principles enunciated earlier by this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] which reads thus: (Prafulla Kumar Samal case [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] , SCC p. 9, para 10) “10. … (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 13. In the said case, it is held that the Trial Court is only required to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, at the stage of consideration of applications filed seeking discharge. In the said case, it is also further held that in assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities, which is really the function of the Court after the trial starts. Learned Revisional Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in passing the impugned order. 14. It is also relevant to note here that during the pendency of this revision petition, the notary public has been now examined before the Trial Court as PW2 and during the course of his examination-in-chief he has reiterated the statement made by him before the police. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no prima-facie material available on record, to try respondent no.1 / accused for the charge sheeted offences. The revisional Court has therefore erred in interfering with the order of the Trial Court rejecting the discharge application filed by respondent no.1. Under the circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained. 15. Accordingly, the following ORDER Criminal Revision petition is allowed. The revisional Court has therefore erred in interfering with the order of the Trial Court rejecting the discharge application filed by respondent no.1. Under the circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained. 15. Accordingly, the following ORDER Criminal Revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the Court of LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.471 of 2021 is set aside.