https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219498 Discharge under Sections 245(2) and 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a reasoned judicial assessment and cannot be granted mechanically for delay or the complainant's absence. The High Court held that Section 245(2) applies only where the Magistrate records reasons and finds the charge groundless, and that a pending complaint with available investigative material did not justify automatic discharge. It further explained that Section 249 is discretionary, not mandatory, so absence of the complainant alone does not compel discharge, especially in a serious, cognizable and non-compoundable matter. The discharge order was therefore set aside and the case restored for trial on merits. en-us Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:56:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219498 Discharge under Sections 245(2) and 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a reasoned judicial assessment and cannot be granted mechanically for delay or the complainant's absence. The High Court held that Section 245(2) applies only where the Magistrate records reasons and finds the charge groundless, and that a pending complaint with available investigative material did not justify automatic discharge. It further explained that Section 249 is discretionary, not mandatory, so absence of the complainant alone does not compel discharge, especially in a serious, cognizable and non-compoundable matter. The discharge order was therefore set aside and the case restored for trial on merits. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219498