IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a Magistrate can discharge an accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. if the complainant fails to present evidence, thereby failing to establish a prima facie case.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2021 whereby and where under, the revision application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 2568 of 2017; by which the opposite party no.2 has been discharged under Section 245 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed and a second prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 2568 of 2017 by which the opposite party no.2 has been discharged under Section 245 Cr.P.C. .

3. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 was summoned to appear in C/1 Case No. 2568 of 2017 involving the offences punishable under Section 498A, 120B and 379 of Indian Penal Code. After appearance of the opposite party no.2, the case was fixed for before charge evidence or pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. on 09.10.2018, 23.01.2019, 24.01.2019, 19.02.2019, 26.03.2019, 03.07.2019, 24.09.2019, 16.01.2020, 27.02.2020, 16.03.2020 but in-spite of being given several opportunities, the complainant did not seek any adjournment to produce pre-charge evidence and ultimately the trial court closed the pre-charge evidence and after considering the materials in the record as there was no sufficient material to frame charge against the accused as no evidence came under Section 244 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur discharged the opposite party no.2 who was the accused person of the said Complaint Case No. 2568 of 2017 vide order dated 30.06.2021; upon the prayer for the same being made by the opposite party no.2.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a settlement agreement between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and as per the terms and condition of the settlement agreement, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 2568 of 2017 resulting in before charge evidence being closed. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such impugned orders passed by the Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur is not sustainable in law and for the purpose of discharge, the court need not examine the veracity of the allegations levelled against the accused nor the court should enter into a roving enquiry but all that is to be seen by the court is that whether, if the allegation are taken to be true, prima facie case is made out against the accused on the basis of the materials brought on record. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant although is duty bound but is not obligated to lead pre-charge evidence and not leading pre-charge evidence will not necessarily absolve the accused of the offences alleged in the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. is invoked only after the stage of pre-charge evidence and the trial court is duty bound to consider pre-charge evidence if it exercises the jurisdiction under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. but if the court exercises the power under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. to discharge the accused then the court has to record reasons for the same that the charges levelled against the accused persons of the case are groundless.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajoy