9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of criminal case under Section 482, Cr. P.C. due to illegal charge framing procedure under Sections 244, 245, and 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Analysis: The petition sought the quashing of a criminal case under Section 482, Cr. P.C. due to an alleged illegal charge framing procedure under Sections 244, 245, and 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case involved a private complaint against the petitioner for offenses under Section 420, I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate's procedure in framing the charge was illegal, as no evidence was taken before framing the charge. The petitioner argued that since no evidence was taken under Section 244, he was deprived of the opportunity to seek discharge under Section 245. However, the court analyzed the relevant sections and found that the Magistrate's power to frame a charge is not dependent on the prior taking of evidence under Section 244. The court highlighted that the complainant's failure to produce evidence under Section 244 could result in the accused being discharged on the grounds of the case being groundless, as per Section 245. The court emphasized that Section 246 allows the Magistrate to frame a charge based on the grounds for presuming the accused committed an offense, even before taking evidence under Section 244. The court examined the scheme outlined in Sections 244, 245, and 246, emphasizing that the Magistrate's duty is to hear the prosecution and take evidence produced, but not necessarily to take evidence under Section 244. The court clarified that the complainant's failure to produce evidence at the enquiry stage under Section 244 could lead to the accused being discharged if the case is deemed groundless. The court pointed out that Section 246 provides two stages for framing a charge in a warrant-case filed otherwise than on a Police report: after evidence taken under Section 244 discloses an offense or if the Magistrate finds grounds for presuming the accused committed an offense, even before taking evidence under Section 244. The court dismissed the petition, citing lack of merit based on the analysis of the relevant legal provisions and precedents cited during the proceedings.
|
