https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460520 Under Section 245(3) CrPC, discharge in a warrant-case on private complaint is not automatic merely because evidence under Section 244 remains incomplete within four years of the accused's appearance. Evidence already recorded may still be treated as evidence even if cross-examination is pending, and the Magistrate may refuse discharge where recorded material and special reasons show that discharge would be against the interest of justice. On the speedy-trial issue, prolonged delay did not by itself justify quashing the complaint where much of the delay arose from proceedings and challenges initiated by the accused, and the allegations required a full trial. The prosecution was allowed to continue and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously. en-us Thu, 03 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:29:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460520 Under Section 245(3) CrPC, discharge in a warrant-case on private complaint is not automatic merely because evidence under Section 244 remains incomplete within four years of the accused's appearance. Evidence already recorded may still be treated as evidence even if cross-examination is pending, and the Magistrate may refuse discharge where recorded material and special reasons show that discharge would be against the interest of justice. On the speedy-trial issue, prolonged delay did not by itself justify quashing the complaint where much of the delay arose from proceedings and challenges initiated by the accused, and the allegations required a full trial. The prosecution was allowed to continue and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460520