Discharge at charge stage and prior merits-based exoneration can justify ending a criminal prosecution on identical facts.

At the discharge stage, the court must only see whether the record creates a grave or strong suspicion and may sift the materials without conducting a trial-like appraisal of defence evidence. The commentary also notes that where an earlier adjudicatory or quasi-judicial proceeding on the same facts has exonerated the accused on merits, and that finding directly undermines the foundation of the criminal case, continued prosecution may amount to abuse of process. On that reasoning, the mining demand order and the criminal case were treated as resting on the same factual basis, supporting discharge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to discharge at the stage of consideration of charge; (ii) Whether the earlier quashing of the departmental mining demand on the same set of facts could be relied upon to hold that the criminal case was groundless and could not continue.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to discharge at the stage of consideration of charge.

Analysis: The governing standard at the stage of discharge and framing of charge is limited to whether the materials on record create sufficient ground for proceeding and whether there is grave or strong suspicion that the accused may have committed the offence. The Court reiterated that the evidence is not to be weighed as at trial and that a roving inquiry into defence materials is impermissible. However, the court must still sift the record to see whether the prosecution case is groundless.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners, as the materials could not justify continuation of the prosecution in the circumstances of this case.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier quashing of the departmental mining demand on the same set of facts could be relied upon to hold that the criminal case was groundless and could not continue.

Analysis: The earlier proceeding under the mining regime arose from the same joint inspection and verification that formed the basis of the FIR and charge-sheet. The Revisional Authority had examined the alleged shortage, dispatch figures, and alleged illegal extraction on merits and set aside the demand, and that decision was upheld in writ proceedings. The Court applied the principle that where identical allegations are exonerated on merits in an adjudicatory or quasi-judicial proceeding, and the finding goes to the substance of the accusation rather than a mere technicality, continuation of a criminal prosecution on the same facts may amount to abuse of process. The Court held that the departmental findings here were not merely technical and directly undermined the foundation of the criminal case.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners; the criminal prosecution could not be sustained on the same factual foundation.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court order refusing discharge was set aside, and the petitioners were directed to be discharged from the criminal case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier adjudicatory proceeding on the same facts has conclusively exonerated the accused on merits, and the criminal prosecution rests on the identical foundation without any independent sustaining material, the prosecution cannot be allowed to continue and discharge is warranted.

---