9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petitioner challenging discharge of accused under Sections 147, 447, 427, and 506(1) IPC; Magistrate invoking S. 251 of Cr.P.C.; Legal validity of Magistrate's order; Applicability of Sections 251 and 255(1) of Cr.P.C.; Discharge provisions under Sections 239 and 227 of Cr.P.C.; Consideration of evidence for discharge; Magistrate's jurisdiction and procedure. Analysis: The petitioner filed a revision against the order discharging the accused under Sections 147, 447, 427, and 506(1) IPC by the Judicial Magistrate II, invoking S. 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts revealed that the accused trespassed on the petitioner's property and threatened him, leading to a police complaint and subsequent charge sheet. The Magistrate discharged the accused after considering the case's merits. However, the petitioner contended that the discharge was illegal as it involved the appreciation of witness statements, not permissible under law. The counsel for the respondents argued that the lower court's order was based on previous court decisions and thus valid. The Government advocate for the State also challenged the Magistrate's order, stating it exceeded legal limits by indulging in case appreciation during the charge framing stage. The High Court observed that the Magistrate's order suffered from grave illegality as it incorrectly applied Sections 251 and 255(1) of the Cr.P.C., which pertain to trial of summon cases. These sections do not allow for discharge; rather, they pertain to acquittal after evidence is taken. The Court highlighted the proper procedures for discharge under Sections 239 and 227 of the Cr.P.C., which were not applicable in this case. It emphasized that the Magistrate's consideration for discharge should only rely on documents filed with the police report and those provided to the accused, not on extraneous materials. The Court cited previous judgments to support this principle and criticized the Magistrate's reliance on irrelevant decisions for discharge. The High Court concluded that the Magistrate's order was legally flawed and set it aside. It directed the matter to proceed to trial and disposal expeditiously, emphasizing the Magistrate's overreach in handling the case. The Court expressed concern over the Magistrate's premature conclusions and instructed a proper trial process moving forward. The revision was allowed, and the case was remitted back for further proceedings.
|
