Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate was required to decide the discharge application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before proceeding with further evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the impugned order fixing the matter for remaining evidence was sustainable.
Analysis: The petitioner had earlier been permitted to press the discharge application, and the concerned court was directed to decide it on merits in accordance with law. The Magistrate, instead of deciding the discharge request, fixed the case for remaining evidence under Section 244. The Court noted that an application for discharge under Section 245(2) can be considered at any stage, including before completion of evidence under Section 244, and the earlier direction had to be complied with in letter and spirit.
Conclusion: The impugned order was held improper. The Magistrate was directed to decide the discharge application within three months after complying with the earlier direction, and no coercive action was to be taken till disposal of that application.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding was kept alive only for fresh consideration of the discharge application, and the trial court was required to proceed in accordance with the prior judicial mandate before moving further in the complaint case.
Ratio Decidendi: A discharge application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be decided before completion of evidence under Section 244, and a subordinate court must give effect to an earlier judicial direction to decide such application on merits before proceeding further.