A Magistrate must provide clear reasons for discharging an accused under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., especially when multiple allegations exist, to ensure transparency and judicial accountability.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioner herein has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2017, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC 2nd Court, Tamluk, in Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the court below set aside the trial Court’s order of discharge passed in favour of the petitioner herein, dated 28th October, 2016 and thereby requested the trial court to record evidence of the witnesses of the opposite party/complainant and thereafter to pass an order as per the provisions of law.

2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the court below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein by dint of an agreement for sale, filed a suit for specific performance of contract and said suit being Other Suit no. 88 of 1993 was decreed in favour of the petitioner and the court directed the defendant to execute sale deed in favour of petitioner herein in respect of the suit property vide judgement dated 22nd March, 2011. Thereafter failure on the part of the defendant, the deed was executed by the executing court in favour of the petitioner in Execution Case no. 2 of 2012 by an order dated 23rd November, 2012. By dint of that sale deed the petitioner got possession over the suit property with the help of court bailiff on 25th January, 2013. Thereafter petitioner herein Chandi Charan Patra lodged a written FIR to the Panskura Police Station that on 25th January, 2013, he was given possession of the land through the process server of court but on 04.02.2013 at about 4.30 p.m., taking advantages of his temporary absence the opposite party /accused persons broke open the lock so fixed by him of the said house and entered the said house and stolen utensils and valuable gifts and on the basis of such allegations, Panskura Police Station case no. 29 of 2013 dated 04.02.2013 under sections 448/461/380/34 of the IPC was started. After completion of investigation on 31st March, 2013 police submitted charges sheet in the said case. After conclusion of trial the Trial Court convicted offender Mrityunjoy Sahoo and Dipali Sahoo, being GR case no. 187 of 2013. It is further submitted that challenging the order of conviction dated 06.07.2022 an appeal has been preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, being Criminal appeal no. 4 of 2023.

3. It is alleged by the petitioner herein that as a counter blast, opposite party no. 2 herein lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner and others and on 14th February, 2013 under the order of jurisdictional Magistrate, the police started investigation being Panskura Police Station Case No. 52 of 2013 under sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 448/ 323/ 380/ 427/ 506(2) of IPC. However, after completion of investigation police submitted final report in the said case stating “mistake of fact” on 07.06.2013.

4. Against that final report, the opposite party no.2 herein filed protest petition (Naraji petition) on 12.11.2013 and the Trial Court on the basis of said objection petition, directed to treat the same as complaint and transfer the case to the judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court Tamluk being CR case No. 280 of 2013 vide order dated 12th November, 2013. Thereafter on 5th August, 2016, petitioner herein filed a discharge application before the Trial Court under section 245(2) of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned trial Magistrate while disposing the said application for discharge came to a finding vide order dated 28th October, 2016 that from the documents, it reveals that as per the order