Magistrate's power to discharge when charges are groundless upheld despite complainant's repeated default and non-appearance.

A Magistrate may discharge an accused under Section 245(2) of the Code at an earlier stage if the charge appears groundless, even before full evidence is recorded. Where the complainant had notice of hearing dates, repeatedly sought adjournments, and then failed to appear or produce witnesses despite being given opportunity, discharge was justified. The revisional court erred in treating the matter as one warranting restoration of the complaint, and in overlooking the distinction between discharge and acquittal. The discharge order was therefore upheld and the restoration order set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in discharging the accused under Section 245(2) of the Code on the complainant's default in appearing and producing witnesses, and whether the revisional order directing restoration of the complaint case was sustainable.

Analysis: The complaint had been repeatedly posted for hearing, and the complainant had notice of the dates fixed and had himself sought adjournment. The Magistrate had already afforded opportunity to the complainant to proceed with the case, but the complainant failed to appear and did not produce witnesses. In such circumstances, the Magistrate could legitimately form the view that the charge was groundless and discharge the accused under Section 245(2). The revisional court erred in overlooking the factual matrix and the distinction between discharge and acquittal, and in ignoring the settled view that the Magistrate may discharge the accused at an earlier stage if the charge is found to be groundless.

Conclusion: The discharge order was valid, and the revisional order restoring the complaint case was unsustainable.

---