Early discharge under criminal procedure remains available before evidence, and tax penalty cancellation does not bind criminal prosecution.

A discharge petition under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable at any previous stage and need not await recording of evidence under section 244, so the Magistrate may consider whether the charge is groundless before prosecution evidence begins. An order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling penalty is relevant but not binding on the criminal court, which must assess the complaint independently on the evidence before it. Where the complaint also alleges independent penal offences, the Tribunal's order does not by itself render the prosecution groundless. The trial court was directed to decide discharge first and then proceed with witness examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a discharge petition under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is maintainable before evidence is recorded under section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling penalty is binding on the criminal court so as to render the prosecution groundless.

Issue (i): Whether a discharge petition under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is maintainable before evidence is recorded under section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 245(2) permits discharge at any previous stage if the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless for reasons to be recorded. The stage for such consideration is not postponed until completion of evidence under section 244. The petition for discharge can therefore be entertained even before the prosecution evidence is taken.

Conclusion: The discharge petition under section 245(2) is maintainable at a stage prior to recording evidence under section 244.

Issue (ii): Whether an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling penalty is binding on the criminal court so as to render the prosecution groundless.

Analysis: The criminal court must decide the criminal case independently on the evidence before it. An order in income-tax proceedings may have relevance, but it does not automatically bind the criminal court. Where the complaint also alleges offences under the Indian Penal Code, cancellation of penalty under the Income-tax Act does not by itself destroy the basis of prosecution.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was not binding on the criminal court and did not make the prosecution groundless.

Final Conclusion: The trial court was directed to decide the discharge petition first and then proceed with the complainant's request to summon and examine witnesses, with an expedited disposal of the criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A discharge petition under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be filed before evidence under section 244 is recorded, but an administrative or appellate finding under the Income-tax Act does not bind the criminal court or automatically terminate a prosecution that also alleges independent penal offences.

---