CrPC Section 245 – When Accused Shall Be Discharged

Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) provides an important provision relating to the discharge of the accused person in criminal cases tried by Magistrates. It outlines the circumstances under which an accused can be discharged. It focuses on the requirement that the Magistrate should carefully examine the evidence before ordering discharge. It gives protection against an unwarranted prosecution, so that no one should spend many long years awaiting trial with insufficient evidence to ensure conviction.

Legal Provisions Of CrPC Section 245

“Section 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.”

Understanding Section 245(1): Discharge Based On Evidence

• Basis for Discharge: Section 245(1) vests power in the Magistrate to discharge the accused if, after considering all evidence brought on record before him under Section 244 (which includes evidence led by the prosecution), he feels that such evidence does not constitute a prima facie case against the accused. By a “prima facie” case, it is meant that there is enough evidence which, if left uncontested or unrebutted, could reasonably lead to a verdict of conviction against the accused.
• Requirement of Recording of Reasons: The Magistrate must record reasons for his conclusion that no case exists against the accused. This way, there would be nothing controversial about the order of discharge. It ensures that there is a degree of transparency in the process.
• Purpose and Objective: The real purpose of this Section is that the accused should not be subjected to trial when the proof are lacking to sustain the charge. It serves as a check against frivolous or vexatious actions. It filters the cases that stand a reasonable chance of resulting in a conviction to trial.

Understanding Section 245(2): Discharge At Any Previous Stage

• Early Discharge: Section 245(2) of CrPC empowers the Magistrate to grant an early discharge to the accused at a stage prior to that contemplated in Section 245(1). The same gives flexibility to the Magistrate to discharge the accused even before all the evidence covered by Section 244 are admitted if the Magistrate is of the opinion that no case exists against the accused.
• Groundless Charges: The term groundless is expressive of the fact that there is no credible evidence against the accused that is going to justify the charges. If, after examining the evidence or the circumstances, the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the case against the accused is groundless, then the Magistrate can summarily discharge the accused.
• Requirement of Recording the Reasons: Like Section 245(1), Section 245(2) also requires that while releasing the accused under Section 245(2), the Magistrate shall record reasons for doing so. The requirement of recording reasons ensures that there is due consideration to the decision and not an arbitrary one.

Importance Of Section 245(2) Of CrPC

Section 245(2) of CrPC provides for such a scenario where a person is not made to face a trial when accusations against that person lack any substance. This Section works as a safety valve by preventing an individual from being put through unnecessary legal proceedings in cases that are thoroughly lacking in merit. Therefore, it saves the time of the Court and other resources that would otherwise be wasted to no avail.

Distinction Between Section 245(1) And Section 245(2)

While both subSections deal with the discharge of an accused, there are important distinctions between the two:

Case Laws On CrPC Section 245

Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs. State Of Jharkhand & Anr. (2009)

The Supreme Court in this case analysed the nuances of SubSections 245(1) and 245(2) vis-à-vis warrant trials instituted other than on police reports.

• In private complaint trials, the prosecution gets an opportunity to lead evidence twice: before charge is framed (under Section 244 CrPC) and after charge.
• To clarify this further, the Court held that as per Section 245(1), the Magistrate considers the evidence by the prosecution to decide whether a case is made out that, if not rebutted, would lead to the conviction of the accused. The Magistrate discharges the accused if no such evidence is found.
• The Court further elaborated upon Section 245(2), whereby the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any time before the production of evidence by the prosecution. The stage thus can arrive between Sections 200 and 204 of CrPC, or when the accused appears before the Court but before presentation of evidence under Section 244 of CrPC. However, the Magistrate shall record reasons for such discharge at this early stage.

Ram Surat Verma vs. State Of U.P. & Another (2021)

In this case, the Court interpreted Section 245 of CrPC and pointed out that under the provisions of Section 245(2) at any previous stage of the case', a Magistrate can discharge an accused person at any stage of a case even before the evidence is led under Section 244(1) of the CrPC.

It explains that the Magistrate can do this even before the accused appears in Court or evidence was led under Section 244 of the CrPC. The Court again reiterated the principle that on a discharge application, the trial Court needs to closely scrutinise the evidence in light of the fact whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the trial. The Court must take into account general probability, the impact of the evidence and documents related to the case, and basic weaknesses in the case, if any.

It was further emphasised that a Magistrate should not dismiss the discharge application without making a proper examination of all the facts relevant to it. A discharge application should be treated seriously as dealing with it in a superficial manner may adversely affect the applicant, the complainant, and the prosecution.

The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs vs. S.Ganesan (2022)

The Court considered Section 245 of the CrPC and analysed it with particular regard to the words “at any previous stage of the case” in Section 245(2). Under this Section, a Magistrate can discharge the accused “at any previous stage of the case” if the charge is discovered to be baseless.

• The Court explained the meaning of "earlier stage" by including the stages enumerated under Sections 200 to 204 CrPC. These Sections relate to the procedures ranging from taking cognizance of an offence to issuing process.
• It means that even before allowing the prosecution to prove his case (as provided in Section 244 CrPC), a Magistrate can discharge an accused if an application for his discharge is made.
• The Court ruled that “previous stage” does not include the “check and call on” stage. This is the initial stage wherein a complaint is made, but not yet formally taken on file or numbered.
• At this point, the Magistrate has not taken “authoritative notice” of the allegations nor applied his judicial mind to the complaint.
• The Court correctly pointed out that the application for discharge is premature at this stage since the proceedings under Section 200 of CrPC are yet to start.

Union Of India vs. Dasang Bhutia (2022)

In this case, the Court elaborately discussed the interpretation of Section 245 of CrPC. The Court held the following: 

• Under Section 245 of the CrPC, a Magistrate is obligated to discharge an accused person if, after perusal of the evidence on record, they are of the opinion that no case has been made out which, unless countered by evidence, would result in a conviction.
• At this juncture of the legal processes, it is crucial that the Court is not obliged to scrutinise the evidence as intensively as it would at the end of the trial. A prima facie case should be determined with the mere view of whether there exists such a case or not.
• In the basic sense, in a prima facie case, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the accused might have committed the crime and, therefore, there must be a need for further legal proceedings.

Vishnu Kumar Shukla vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

The Court elaborately dealt with the applicability of Section 245 of the CrPC while dealing with the appeal in this case. It observed that there is a variation between Section 245(1) and 245(2). It held the following :

• Section 245 (1): It vests the power in the Magistrate to discharge the accused. He can do this after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, he finds no incriminatory material against the accused which would warrant his conviction. Such a discharge by the Magistrate would be made after the prosecution has led evidence in its case.
• Section 245(2): This Section allows the Magistrate to acquit an accused at any stage before recording evidence in case the charge is found to be baseless. This means that this provision can be used even at a time preceding the appearance of the accused before the Court or even before evidence is presented.

The Court held that there was not even enough evidence to raise even a suspicion, much less a grave or strong one that the appellants were guilty. Therefore it would be unjust to let them undergo a full trial. Here, the Court intervened and acquitted the appellants, and discharged them by setting aside the judgement of the High Court and the order of the Trial Court where their discharge was rejected.

Purpose And Significance Of CrPC Section 245

Section 245 of CrPC serves multiple purposes:

• Protecting the Accused: It avoids unnecessary trials where evidence is inadequate to sustain the charge because no one should be forced to stand trial without reasonable cause.
• Efficient Use of Judicial Resources: Section 245 of CrPC provides for discharge of merit-less cases, which thus helps in removing the burden from the judicial system. It ensures effective use of Court time and judicial resources only for cases involving substantial evidence.
• Ensuring Fair Train Standards: Section 245 of CrPC ensures that the standards of fair trial are being followed. A case should proceed only when there is sufficient evidence that warrants a conviction. Such standards bring about fair trial standards, ensuring that evidentiary implications are met with an appropriate response. In this manner, Section 245 acts as a filter of various procedural misuse in judicial processes.

Conclusion

Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an important safeguard in the criminal justice system, whereby no accused persons can be put on trial where evidence is insufficient or the allegations are squarely untrue. As it is imperative for the Magistrate to give reasons for discharging the accused, it makes the judges accountable and transparent about their decision-making process. The dual approach provided under Section 245(1) and Section 245(2) gives the Magistrates the necessary leeway to make well-informed decisions at any stage of a criminal trial. Therefore, Section 245 of CrPC protects the provisions of the rights of persons in conjunction with maintaining judicial integrity.