High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 18.7.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Hathras in Case No. 483 of 2019 (Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Vs. Devendra) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for his discharge from the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act 1881, had been rejected.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hathras had rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. only on the ground that the said application can be heard after the evidence of the witnesses is recorded, whereas Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. provides that the trial court may consider the application for discharge from the offence at any previous stage and there is no prohibition that if the evidence had not been recorded, the application for discharge would not be entertained.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has tried to defend the order impugned in this criminal revision but could not justify the ground on which the application filed by the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., had been rejected.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision.

6. I find that the learned trial court had rejected the revisionist's application filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. only on the ground that since evidence in the matter has not been recorded therefore, the application for discharge cannot be heard and decided.

7. For arriving at a correct conclusion in this matter it is apt to have a look over the findings recorded by the trial court. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 is extracted as under :- " पपरर / अभभययक ववररनद सससह दपरप पपररनपपत अनतररत धपरप 245(2) पसतयत कर इस आधपर पर उनममभचत भकयर जपनर कक पपररनप कक हह भक मनमज शमपर दपरप पपरर कम चरक सस0 071715 व 071711 धमखर सर रपयब कर भदयर रयर रर तरप रहनन शमपर कर पलपट भबकक मम भमलर चहक 7 लपख 60 हजपर रपयर कर भव धमखर सर पपरर सर लर सलयर रर। पररवपदव दपरप आपसत कर करन भकयप रयप हह भक उपरमक पपररनपपत वपरणट टटपयल पमषणवय हह व पररवपदपत दरवरनद / मनमज शमपर आभद कप जम उलरख भकयप रयप हह उसकर बपवत उसर कमई जपनकपरव नहह हह। पतपवलव कर अवलमकन सर भवभदत हह भक पररवपदव दपरप भवरद दरवरनद सससह अनतररत धपरप 138 एन.आई. एकट पररवपद दपयर भकयप रयप सजसमर धपरप 200 दस०प०सस० व अनय दसतपवरजव सपकय व रवपहह कर बयपनह कर उपरपनत अभभययक दरवरनद कर भवरद नयपयपलय दपरप अनतररत धपरप 138 एन.आई. ०एकट तलब आदरश पपररत भकयप रयप। पतपवलव पर अभव बयपन मयललजम भव नहह बनप हह तरप पररवपदव दपरप सपकय भव अभव पतपवलव पर नहह आयप हह। धपरप 245 (2) द०प०सस० यह पपवधपभनत करतव हह भक समसत सपकयह कर उपरपनत यभद अभभययक कर भवर० कमई कर स नहह बनतप हह तब नयपयपलय दपरप उसर उनममभचत भकयप जप सकतप हह। 245 कक उपधपरप 2 यह पपवधपभनत करतव हह भक सपकयह कर पनवर सतर पर भव यभद नयपयपलय कम लरतप हह भक आरमप बरबयभनयपद हह तम अभभययक कम उनममभचत भकयप जप सकतप हह। परनतय पसतयत पकरण मम पपरर दपरप ऐसप कमई आधपर नहह सलयर रयर हह यप ऐसप कमई सपकय पसतयत नहह भकयप रयप हह सजससर यह पतवत हम भक पररवपदव दपरप अनय सपकयह कम दपसखल भकयर जपनर सर पनवर व अभभययक कर बयपन मयललजम कर पनवर अभभययक कम उनममभचत भकयप जपय। पपररनपपत इस सतर पर सववकपर भकयर जपनर यमगय नहह हह।"

8. From the aforesaid contents of the impugned order dated 18.7.2024, it is patently manifest that the trial court had rejected the revisionist's application, filed under Section 245(2), only for the reason that till date evidence in the matter has not been recorded and therefore, it is not proper stage for considering the application filed by the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

9. Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. reads 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."

10. From bare perusal of the provisions made in Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., it is patently manifest that it does not contain a condition that the application for discharge can be considered only after the evidence is led before the trial court, rather there exists a contrary provision that the trial court has power to discharge the accused at any previous stage, if there are reasons for doing so.

11. In view of the categorical provisions made in Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the trial court is under obligation to decide the revisionist's application filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on its own merit and it cannot be simply rejected on the ground that since the evidence in the trial has not been recorded therefore, the application is not maintainable.

12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.7.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Hathras is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court with a direction to reconsider the application filed by the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on its own merit, by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Gaurav GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 18.7.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Hathras in Case No. 483 of 2019 (Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Vs. Devendra) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for his discharge from the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act 1881, had been rejected.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hathras had rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. only on the ground that the said application can be heard after the evidence of the witnesses is recorded, whereas Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. provides that the trial court may consider the application for discharge from the offence at any previous stage and there is no prohibition that if the evidence had not been recorded, the application for discharge would not be entertained.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has tried to defend the order impugned in this criminal revision but could not justify the ground on which the application filed by the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., had been rejected.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision.

6. I find that the learned trial court had rejected the revisionist's application filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. only on the ground that since evidence in the matter has not been recorded therefore, the application for discharge cannot be heard and decided.

7. For arriving at a correct conclusion in this matter it is apt to have a look over the findings recorded by the trial court. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 is extracted as under :- " पपरर / अभभययक ववररनद सससह दपरप पपररनपपत अनतररत धपरप 245(2) पसतयत कर इस आधपर पर उनममभचत भकयर जपनर कक पपररनप कक हह भक मनमज शमपर दपरप पपरर कम चरक सस0 071715 व 071711 धमखर सर रपयब कर भदयर रयर रर तरप रहनन शमपर कर पलपट भबकक मम भमलर चहक 7 लपख 60 हजपर रपयर कर भव धमखर सर पपरर सर लर सलयर रर। पररवपदव दपरप आपसत कर करन भकयप रयप हह भक उपरमक पपररनपपत वपरणट टटपयल पमषणवय हह व पररवपदपत दरवरनद / मनमज शमपर आभद कप जम उलरख भकयप रयप हह उसकर बपवत उसर कमई जपनकपरव नहह हह। पतपवलव कर अवलमकन सर भवभदत हह भक पररवपदव दपरप भवरद दरवरनद सससह अनतररत धपरप 138 एन.आई. एकट पररवपद दपयर भकयप रयप सजसमर धपरप 200 दस०प०सस० व अनय दसतपवरजव सपकय व रवपहह कर बयपनह कर उपरपनत अभभययक दरवरनद कर भवरद नयपयपलय दपरप अनतररत धपरप 138 एन.आई. ०एकट तलब आदरश पपररत भकयप रयप। पतपवलव पर अभव बयपन मयललजम भव नहह बनप हह तरप पररवपदव दपरप सपकय भव अभव पतपवलव पर नहह आयप हह। धपरप 245 (2) द०प०सस० यह पपवधपभनत करतव हह भक समसत सपकयह कर उपरपनत यभद अभभययक कर भवर० कमई कर स नहह बनतप हह तब नयपयपलय दपरप उसर उनममभचत भकयप जप सकतप हह। 245 कक उपधपरप 2 यह पपवधपभनत करतव हह भक सपकयह कर पनवर सतर पर भव यभद नयपयपलय कम लरतप हह भक आरमप बरबयभनयपद हह तम अभभययक कम उनममभचत भकयप जप सकतप हह। परनतय पसतयत पकरण मम पपरर दपरप ऐसप कमई आधपर नहह सलयर रयर हह यप ऐसप कमई सपकय पसतयत नहह भकयप रयप हह सजससर यह पतवत हम भक पररवपदव दपरप अनय सपकयह कम दपसखल भकयर जपनर सर पनवर व अभभययक कर बयपन मयललजम कर पनवर अभभययक कम उनममभचत भकयप जपय। पपररनपपत इस सतर पर सववकपर भकयर जपनर यमगय नहह हह।"

8. From the aforesaid contents of the impugned order dated 18.7.2024, it is patently manifest that the trial court had rejected the revisionist's application, filed under Section 245(2), only for the reason that till date evidence in the matter has not been recorded and therefore, it is not proper stage for considering the application filed by the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

9. Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. reads 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."

10. From bare perusal of the provisions made in Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., it is patently manifest that it does not contain a condition that the application for discharge can be considered only after the evidence is led before the trial court, rather there exists a contrary provision that the trial court has power to discharge the accused at any previous stage, if there are reasons for doing so.

11. In view of the categorical provisions made in Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the trial court is under obligation to decide the revisionist's application filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on its own merit and it cannot be simply rejected on the ground that since the evidence in the trial has not been recorded therefore, the application is not maintainable.

12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.7.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Hathras is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court with a direction to reconsider the application filed by the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on its own merit, by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Gaurav GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad