Judicial orders dismissing discharge petitions must include reasoning to demonstrate consideration of the charges to comply with legal requirements and protect rights.

ORDER

This revision is filed against the order dated 06.12.2024 in CMP No.702/2024 in CC No.160/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, South Paravur. It is an order passed by the learned Magistrate in a discharge petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C . The petitioner was the 3^rd accused in the above case. The case was registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 120, 320, 370A, 417, 465, 468, 506 and 406 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, there is absolutely no material against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a detailed discharge petition before the learned Magistrate. The same is dismissed. Hence, this revision.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

4. The counsel for the petitioner relied on an unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P No.137/2015 . He submitted that, a perusal of the impugned order would not show that the learned Magistrate has considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in the discharge petition. This Court, in the judgment dated

02.03.2015 in Cr.R.P No.137/2015, observed like this:

" 7. True that a bare perusal of section 239, Cr.P.C would reveal that it enjoins the Magistrate to record his reasons for holding the charge against a particular accused to be groundless for his/her discharge. This is certainly because an order of discharge passed under section 239, Cr.P.C is a revisable order. In such circumstances, the question is whether an application for discharge could be dismissed without assigning any reason at all? In other words, whether a mere recital to the effect that examination of police records and documents submitted along with the final report prima facie makes out the alleged offence/offences and therefore, there is no ground to consider the charge against a particular accused as groundless, would be sufÏce to satisfy a due consideration of applications for discharge moved by accused persons, in accordance with law. As noticed herein before, a bare perusal of section 239 Cr.P.C would reveal that if the Magistrate thinks necessary after giving the prosecution an opportunity of being heard, the learned Magistrate could consider the charge against the accused to be groundless for the purpose of discharging the accused and if he forms the opinion that the charge against the accused is groundless then, after recording the reasons for discharge, the said accused could be discharged. Does it mean that the word 'consider' appearing in section 239, Cr.P.C mandates such a consideration only for the purpose of discharging the accused? The word 'consider' is not a defined word under the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the Black's law dictionary, the word 'consider' means 'to fix the mind on with a view to careful examination'. In such circumstances, the word 'consider' employed under section 239 Cr.P.C certainly carries the meaning 'examination with due application of mind' and therefore, while considering an application for discharge such consideration as to whether the charge is groundless or not has to be undertaken. If that is the meaning of the expression 'consider' employed in section 239, Cr.P.C and the reason to insist recording of reasons in an order passed under section 239 Cr.P.C discharging the accused is that such an order is revisable then, how can it be said that on considering an application for discharge it can be dismissed without assigning any reason. It is to be noted that an order dismissing an application filed under section 239 Cr.P.C for discharge is also revisable. I am not oblivious of the position settled by a plethora of decisions that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge under section