The grounds for quashing criminal proceedings differ from those for discharge applications, necessitating a fresh and reasoned evaluation by the trial court.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

The appellants assail order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the High Court declining to interfere with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge refusing to discharge the appellants in a prosecution case under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no specific attribution to the appellants in the suicide note. The appellants are the sister-in-law of the deceased and her husband.

Learned counsel for the respondent – State informs that in the trial, the prosecution evidence is over and the defence evidence is virtually at closure. She further submits that there is a reference in the charge-sheet to some compromise petition also signed by the deceased the contents of which are not known at this stage.

Be that as it may, we find that the order dated 26.10.2018 refusing to discharge the appellants suffers from abdication of jurisdiction. Merely because an earlier application to quash the entire prosecution under section 482 of Cr.P.C. may have been dismissed, the Additional Sessions Judge could not decline to consider the application for discharge on that ground. The grounds for quashing a criminal proceeding and the reasons for allowing or disallowing an application for discharge preferred by the accused are completely different. The grounds falling for consideration in the two jurisdictions are completely different.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the discharge application to the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur for fresh consideration and to pass a reasoned and speaking order to his satisfaction keeping all aspects of the matter in mind, including the submissions made before us on behalf of the respondent – State. The appeal is allowed.