Summons case discharge is unavailable before evidence, and a magistrate cannot end prosecution by treating the dispute as civil.

In a summons case, discharge is not available under Section 251 read with Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before evidence under Section 254 is recorded, because Section 251 only requires the particulars of the offence to be stated and Section 255(1) permits acquittal only after evidence is taken. The Court also held that, at the preliminary stage, the Magistrate cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or treat the dispute as civil in nature to terminate the prosecution. The discharge petition and the order based on such premature evaluation were therefore held unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an accused in a summons case could seek discharge under Section 251 read with Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the evidence contemplated by Section 254 was recorded; (ii) Whether the Magistrate could discharge the accused by appreciating the evidence and treating the dispute as civil in nature at the preliminary stage.

Issue (i): Whether an accused in a summons case could seek discharge under Section 251 read with Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the evidence contemplated by Section 254 was recorded.

Analysis: Section 251 governs the stating of particulars to the accused in a summons case and does not provide for discharge. Section 255(1) authorises acquittal only after evidence under Section 254 is taken. A petition for discharge before the commencement of evidence was therefore contrary to the statutory scheme and not maintainable.

Conclusion: The discharge petition under Section 251 read with Section 255(1) was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate could discharge the accused by appreciating the evidence and treating the dispute as civil in nature at the preliminary stage.

Analysis: At the stage of considering whether to proceed, the Court was confined to the materials permitted by the Code and could not conduct a meticulous evaluation of witness statements or rely on extraneous material. The scope of discharge under the analogous provisions for warrant and sessions cases is also limited to cases where the charge is groundless or there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. The Magistrate exceeded that limited jurisdiction by assessing facts in detail and by treating the pendency or outcome of a civil suit as decisive.

Conclusion: The impugned discharge order was illegal and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the discharge order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrate for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summons case, discharge cannot be ordered under Section 251 read with Section 255(1) before evidence under Section 254 is recorded, and the court at the preliminary stage cannot embark upon a detailed appreciation of evidence or treat the dispute as civil so as to terminate the prosecution.

---