Discharge petition must be decided first before witness examination when the accused claims the charges are groundless.

A discharge petition under section 245(2) CrPC should be decided first when the accused contends that the charges are groundless; the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and dispose of that request at the earliest. The text states that directing examination of witnesses while the discharge application remained pending was contrary to law, and the reasons for refusing postponement under section 309 CrPC were unsustainable. The trial court was therefore directed to decide the discharge petition on merits before taking witness evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in insisting on examination of witnesses while the discharge petition under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 remained pending, and in declining to postpone trial steps under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The discharge application had been pending for several years, and the Court found that the question of its maintainability and merits ought to have been considered and decided first. Keeping the discharge petition pending while directing examination of witnesses was held to be contrary to law. The reasons given for refusing postponement of witness examination were found unsustainable because, where an accused seeks discharge on the footing that the charges are groundless, the Magistrate is expected to apply judicial mind to that request and dispose of it at the earliest.

Conclusion: The order directing refusal of postponement was set aside, and the trial court was directed to decide the discharge petition on merits before proceeding with witness examination.

---