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 petition challenging rejection of the discharge application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was premature and whether the accused could seek discharge only after the prosecution led evidence before charge.
Analysis: The earlier orders had refused discharge under Section 245(2) on the ground that the prosecution had not yet been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, and that the material relied upon by the accused, including the tribunal's findings, could not by itself justify discharge at that stage. The Court accepted that the proper stage for a discharge application under Section 245(1) would arise after the prosecution had led evidence before charge, and noted that the complainant had not yet done so.
Conclusion: The petition was held to be premature, and the accused was left at liberty to move for discharge under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the appropriate stage after prosecution evidence before charge.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of discharge did not succeed at this stage, and the proceedings were allowed to continue to the stage of prosecution evidence before charge.
Ratio Decidendi: A discharge plea under Section 245(2) cannot be entertained prematurely before the prosecution has been given an opportunity to lead evidence, and the accused may seek discharge under Section 245(1) at the appropriate stage thereafter.