Legal Provisions of Section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
When accused shall be discharged:
If the evidence produced is not sufficient for making out a prima facie case against the accused, the Magistrate is duty bound to discharge him under this section. An order of discharge passed by the Magistrate in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report should always be a written order it should contain the reasons for the Magistrate discharging the accused.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Sub-section (2) further provides that the Magistrate can discharge the accused even without recording the evidence in appropriate cases, particularly when charges against the accused are groundless. So also, it would be open to the accused to move the Court issuing process to discharge him even before the evidence, is recorded on the ground that the complaint makes out no case against him.
Thus it would appear that sub-section (2) of Section 245 is an exception to sub-section (1) as it empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused even before taking evidence produced against him. But this discretion of the Magistrate should be well reasoned and recorded in writing.
Image Source : luna.edu
But where a prima facie case has been made out against the alleged offence, the discharge of the accused under sub-section (2) will not be proper. In a case where father-in-law was prosecuted for abetting his daughter-in-law to commit suicide and there was no evidence of any cruelty on his part nor was he present at the time of suicide nor was there any material on record to make out prima facie case against him, it was held that the accused was rightly discharged under sub-section (2) of Section 245 of the Code.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In State of Bihar v. Baidnath Prasad, the preliminary evidence collected were sufficient to frame charge against the accused, but the High Court had discharged the accused merely on ground that the case was pending for the last seven years.
The Supreme Court held that the discharge was not proper because the High Court did not consider the case from the angle provided in Section 245 of the Code and was persuaded to discharge the accused only on the ground that “the case was pending for the last seven years”. The Court dismissed the plea of discharge and observed.
“An order of discharge of the accused after collecting the evidence envisaged in Section 244 of the Code can be passed only when “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”. This is the legislative edict of Section 245 of the Code. The only exception to the said precept is that it is open to the Magistrate to discharge 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.” The Magistrate had no reason to discharge the accused at that stage as he felt that there was evidence to frame the charge.”
In Mohd. Mustafa v. State of Jharkhand, the High Court of Jharkhand observed that the complainant had yet to adduce evidence, therefore the prayer of for discharge by dismissing the complaint on ground that same was groundless was not maintainable.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India an application for discharge was made by the petitioner (accused) on plea that no offence had been committed in view of “reasonable cause” shown by them.
The trial Court, however, declined to pass an order of discharge holding that the petition could not be entertained as the matter could be decided on the basis of evidence which would be adduced by parties before a competent court. The Supreme Court therefore refused to interfere. The case involved prosecution for default in payment of tax deducted at source.