Section 245 CrPC discharge turns on whether unrebutted materials could warrant conviction, not mere admissible evidence.

After evidence is recorded under Section 244 CrPC, a Magistrate acting under Section 245 must assess whether the materials disclose a case which, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction, rather than mechanically proceeding on the mere existence of admissible evidence. The scrutiny is broader than the preliminary stage under Sections 203 and 204 and requires application of mind to probative value and the broad probabilities of the case, without weighing evidence in fine detail. Applying that standard, the complaint's delay, inherent improbabilities in the complainant's version, and unreliable supporting testimony justified discharge under Section 245.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after an enquiry under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate was justified in discharging the accused under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the materials disclosed a case which, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction.

Analysis: The scope of consideration under Section 245(1) differs from the preliminary scrutiny under Sections 203 and 204. After evidence is recorded under Section 244, the Magistrate must decide whether the materials disclose a case which, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction, and not mechanically proceed on the mere existence of admissible evidence. The Court held that the stage does not permit weighing evidence in golden scales, but it does require an application of mind to the probative value of the materials and the broad probabilities of the case. On the facts, the complaint was delayed by more than two months, the complainant's version was marked by inherent improbabilities, and the evidence of the supporting witnesses was also found uninspiring and unreliable.

Conclusion: The discharge was upheld, as the materials did not establish a case which, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction.

---