ORDER

13.12.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Order dated 13.0.2003 passed by the learned JMFC, Puri in 1.C.C. No. 48 of 2002 discharging the accused persons for the continuous absence of the complainant at the stage of adducing evidence before charge, as confirmed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II, Puri) in Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2002, has been challenged in this application U/s. 482 of CrPC.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused U/s. 294/379/323/34 of IPC in the complaint case and as such the case was triable by warrant procedure. The impugned order of the Magistrate reveals that the complaint case was fixed for evidence before charge, as per provision of Section 244, CrPC, but the complainant was absent on 09.10.2002, 06.12.2002, 24.01.2003, 06.03.2003 and 2.04.2003 before the date of passing of the impugned order and therefore, in exercise of power U/s. 24 of CrPC, the learned JMFC, Puri discharged the accused persons by the impugned order and the same was confirmed by the Revisional Court.

4. Section 245 of CrPC is as under :-

“245. When accused shall be discharged. –(1) if , upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.

(2) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.”

5. Though Section 245(1) specifically says about discharge of the accused on consideration evidence recorded before charge, the Section does not specifically deal with a situation for continuous absence of the complainant when the case is posted for evidence before charge. Sub-Section (2) of Section 245, CrPC confers power on the Magistrate to discharge the accused at a previous stage if he considers the charge to be groundless. Therefore, the learned Magistrate cannot be held to be powerless to discharge the accused, in case of continuous or repeated absence of the complainant to adduce evidence before charge. Such power squarely falls within the ambit of Section 245 (2), CrPC.

Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders and accordingly the CRLMC is dismissed.

CRLMC dismissed.