The Magistrate has the discretion to pass an order of discharge under S.245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure even without taking the entire prosecution evidence if further inquiry would serve no purpose or the charge is groundless.

1. The complainant in C. C. No. 441 of 1978 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the II Class, Ernakulam challenges the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate under S.245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').

2. On 29-3-1978 the revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the trial Magistrate stating that on 28-3-1978 at about 8.30 a. m. accused (respondents 1 to 7 herein) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing trespass into his property and committing theft of coconuts, arecanuts, cashew nuts, pineapples, etc. belonging to him and actually committed theft of these fruits of the value of Rs. 200 and the same was done under the instigation of the 7th respondent According to him, there was ill-feeling between the parties because he objected to their walking along the canal bund passing through his property, which has been acquired by the Government. The trial Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued summons. Respondents 1 to 7 appeared before the Magistrate. Pws. 1 and 2 were examined. pw.3 was partly examined and at that stage, the learned Magistrate stopped the enquiry and passed an order of discharge under S.245 (2) of the Code on the ground that the complainant's case is groundless. This order is now challenged in this revision.

3. The only contention urged at the bar by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that when once cognizance was taken and summons was issued under S.201 of the Code, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order of discharge under S.245 (2) of the Code, without receiving the entire evidence produced by the complainant. Consequently, it is argued that the learned Magistrate was not justified in not recording the evidence of all the witnesses cited by the complainant.

4. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with this argument. When a complaint is filed in court in regard to a warrant case there are five stages of disposal. S.200 of the Code requires the Court to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses, if any, present in the court and reduce the substance of such examination to writing and take the signatures of the complainant and the witnesses therein. After so doing, under S.202 of the Code the Magistrate may either postpone the issuance of process to the accused and inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the case. In other words, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and of the witnesses, the above alternatives are open before him under S.202 of the Code if he decides, to postpone process. S.203 of the Code lays down that if, after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, under S.202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint recording briefly the reasons for so doing This is one way of final disposal of a complaint contemplated in the Code.

5. S.204 of the Code relates to issue of process to the accused in cases where after taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate finds that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The stage could be reached after the stage contemplated in S.200 or 202 of the Code.

6. The next stage is found in S.244 of the Code Under this section, the Magistrate shall hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution Having taken all such evidence, it is open to the Magistrate to do one of the two things, viz., (i) pass an order of discharge under S 245(1) of the Code on the ground that do case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, or (ii) proceed to frame charge again