Whether accused can be discharged as per s 245(2) of crpc for offences for which sanction for prosecution is not required?

Even in the citation quoted by the trial Court, the very same proposition has been laid down i.e. 1992 (1) M.W.N. 283.

"The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in catena of cases show, that where an accused commits some offences which are separate and distinct from that contained underSection 195, Cr.P.C. the said section will affect only the offences mentioned therein, unless such offences form an integral part, so as to amount to offences committed as a part of the same transaction, in which case, the other offences also would fall within the ambit of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This legal position has been made clear by the Apex Court inState of U.P. v. Suresh Charar Srivastava, 1985 Law Weekly (Crl) 5 : (1985 Cri LJ 926)".

8. Therefore, in the light of the above guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court and in view of the earlier observation made by a Division Bench of this Court, in the Writ Petitions, offences under Sections 199 and 200, I.P.C. as mentioned in the private complaint related to separate transaction which are separable from the main offences alleged to have been committed by the respondent/accused in some other transaction and as such, I am of the view, that the embargo under Section 195, Cr.P.C. would not be applicable for other offences except 199 and 200, I.P.C. In these circumstances, the order passed by the lower Court discharging accused/respondent in respect of all the offences suffers from infirmity and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and remitted back to the trial Court to go on with trial in respect of other offences.

Madras High Court

Ayyappan vs Krishnapillai on 30 April, 1997

Bench: M Karpagavinayagam

Citation; 1997CRLJ3692 Mad

Print Page

Whether magistrate can discharge accused at any previous stage of case as per S 245(2) CRPC?

Mr. De, learned Counsel for the opposite party has taken the extreme stand that after the trial Court is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out and direction issued for issuance of processes Sub-section (2) of Section 245, Cr. P.C. has no application. On the other hand, Mr. Chaudhury has taken the stand, in my opinion, correctly, that at any stage the Court can exercise the powers under the said Sub-section (2), if the Court is of the opinion that the charge levelled against the accused is groundless. Sub-section (2) of Section 245, Cr. P.C. is the ad verbatim copy of Sub-section (2) of Section 253 of the old Code. In Cricket Association of Bengal v. State of West Bengal , the Apex Court held that Sub-section (2) of Section 253 of the old Code gives ample jurisdiction to the Magistrate to discharge an accused in the circumstances mentioned therein and the other of discharge can be passed at any previous stage of the case. This being the legal position, I am of the opinion, that the power of discharge under Sub-section (2) ofSection 245, Cr. P.C. can be exercised by the learned Magistrate at any stage of the criminal proceeding. But in discharging the accused under the said sub-section Magistrate has to be satisfied that the charge is groundless and accordingly has to record reasons. This being the legal position, the order dt. 14-7-87 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the petition of the accused/petitioners under Section 245(2), Cr. P.C. cannot stand.

Gauhati High Court

Chandra Nath Sarma And Anr. vs Mahesh Nath Sarma on 19 January, 1989

Equivalent citations: 1989 CriLJ 1330

Bench: S Phukan

Print Page

When Magistrate can discharge accused in warrant trial complaint case without recording evidence?

There is however no warrant for the proposition that Under Section 245(2), Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate is prevented in any way from discharging the accused at any previous stage prior to taking all the evidence, if he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that he considers the charges to be groundless. If in any particular case, as has happened here, the complainant fails to produce the witnesses for which he has assumed responsibility, and the case is dragged on due to such successive lapses of the complainant, there is nothing inherently unreasonable in the Magistrate coming to the conclusion that the charge is groundless and that the accused persons be discharged. To hold the contrary should grant a premium to the complainant to prolong the harassment to the accused at his mercy. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Criminal Revision No. 103 of 1980

Decided On: 17.09.1986

 Agadhu Das Vs.  Baban Parida and ten Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.B. Patnaik and Lingaraj Rath, JJ.

Equivalent Citation: 62(1986)CLT540, 1986(II)OLR493, 1986(2)OLR493,1987CRLJ555 Orissa

Print Page