The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that if the complainant did not express any intention to produce any evidence in support of the prosecution; after giving a reasonable opportunity the Magistrate concerned has every right to close the before charge evidence and once such express order closing the before charge evidence is passed by the Magistrate, the stage under Section 244 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure comes to an end whether or not the evidence as envisaged under Section 244 of Code of Criminal Procedure is produced by the complainant or not.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Opposite Part no. 2 was summoned to appear in relation to the case registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 120B, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Then, the case was put for before-charge evidence or pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. However, even after giving several opportunities, no adjournment was taken to produce the pre-charge evidence, and consequence of this, the court closed the pre-charge evidence. Furthermore, the learned trial court discharged the accused person. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the court under Section 482 CrPC in order to quash the order passed by the learned court below.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that owing to the settlement agreement between the parties, the Petitioner didn’t appear before the court. It was furthermore submitted that for the purpose of discharge, the court need not examine the veracity of allegations, but only has to see whether, if the allegations are taken to be true, a prima facie case is made out against the accused on the basis of the materials brought on record. Also, Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a provision enabling and empowering and imposing a burden on the trial court to consider pre-charge evidence before discharging the accused persons.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., Yeduruparthi Kamakshamma vs. T. Taranadh, and Chintamani Pandey vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand).
Contentions of the State
The State submitted that even though the Petitioner was aware of the discharge petition, then, also, the Petitioner didn’t wish to express her wish to adduce any before-charge evidence. It was furthermore submitted that the ground for not producing the before charge evidence was not sustainable in law as the parties to the litigation have no right to stall the judicial proceeding by a court by mutual agreement between them. Also, the stage under Section 244 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot continue indefinitely if the complainant doesn't express a desire to introduce any pre-charge evidence or pray for an adjournment. As a result, after the pre-charge evidence is closed, there is absolutely no pre-charge evidence in the record.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the plain reading of Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C. makes it clearly evident that the stage of Section 245 commences only after the conclusion of the Stage of Section 244. This Court has no hesitation in declaring that Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stage cannot last indefinitely. Once the Magistrate has issued an express order closing the before-charge evidence, the stage under Section 244 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ends. This is because the complainant did not express any intention to produce any evidence in support of the prosecution. The Magistrate concerned has the right to do so after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The court noted that the instant case is not about the Petitioner's desire to produce the before-charge evidence and she was not allowed to do so. However, she was very well aware of the discharge proceedings, and after that also she did not express any desire to adduce any before-charge evidence nor it is the case of the petitioner herein that she wanted to adduce some before charge evidence, which was not allowed.
It was furthermore noted that The power granted by Code of Criminal Procedure Section 245 (2) may be used at any earlier stage of the case, either before the prosecution's evidence under Section 244 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is finished, or at any point before then, which would fall under Sections 200 to 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The magistrate must conclude that the charge is without merit when using the power granted by Section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Petition.
Case title: Aziz Fatima @ Aziz Fatma V. The State of Jharkhand
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 509 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate : Mr. P.S. Bajaj, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Addl. P.P.
Advocate for the Opposite Part no. 2: Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
