Section 245(2) discharge is unavailable once Section 244 evidence-taking has commenced but remains incomplete.

The revisionist filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), alleging that the respondents had committed offences under Sections 420, 468, 409, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Judicial Magistrate, Chungthang, proceeded under Section 244 CrPC after the accused had appeared and the complainant had been examined and cross-examined.

The complainant sought to examine another witness, Dilip Kumar Modi, who had not appeared due to medical reasons, and also had pending applications concerning additional documents.

Despite the evidence under Section 244 not being complete, the Magistrate considered the material on record and discharged the accused under Section 245(2) CrPC by order dated 29 December 2017, holding that the charge was groundless.

Whether the Magistrate could discharge the accused under Section 245(2) CrPC after evidence under Section 244 CrPC had commenced but had not been completed?

Whether the Magistrate was entitled to rely on the complainant’s pre-summoning evidence under Section 200 CrPC for discharging the accused at the stage of Section 244 CrPC?

Sections 244 and 245 CrPC govern the taking of prosecution evidence and discharge in warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.

Under Section 244 CrPC, the Magistrate must take all evidence produced by the prosecution after the accused appears or is brought before the court.

Section 245(1) CrPC permits discharge only after all evidence under Section 244 has been taken, where such evidence, if unrebutted, would not warrant conviction.

Section 245(2) CrPC permits discharge at any previous stage, including before evidence under Section 244 is led, but only where the charge is found to be groundless.

Relying on Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 14 SCC 115, the Court held that Section 245(2) applies before the evidentiary stage under Section 244, whereas once that stage has commenced, discharge must be considered under Section 245(1) only after the prosecution has completed its evidence.

The Magistrate had already entered the stage contemplated by Section 244 CrPC: the complainant had been examined and cross-examined, while another proposed witness remained to be examined and applications for production of additional documents remained pending.

Consequently, the prosecution evidence had begun but had not been completed.

The Magistrate therefore could not invoke Section 245(2), which is intended for an earlier stage when no Section 244 evidence has been led.

Nor could the Magistrate determine the matter by examining the pre-summoning evidence recorded under Section 200 CrPC, because the case had progressed to the distinct stage of recording evidence under Section 244.

The proper course was to permit the complainant to produce and close all evidence, and only thereafter consider discharge under Section 245(1) CrPC.

The revision petition was allowed, the order dated 29 December 2017 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Judicial Magistrate, Chungthang, with directions to allow the revisionist to lead and close her evidence and thereafter proceed to the next stage in accordance with law.