CrPC Section 258- Power To Stop Proceedings In Certain Cases

Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) provides for the powers of magistrates in stopping proceedings in certain cases. According to this section, a first class magistrate or any magistrate with previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, can cancel proceedings at any stage for reasons to be recorded. This Section is given to allow magistrates flexibility in the management of cases with efficiency while, at the same time dispensing justice to the accused.

Legal Provision: Section 258- Power To Stop Proceedings In Certain Cases

“Section 258- Power to stop proceedings in certain cases-

In any summons case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgement and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgement of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.”

Simplified Explanation Of CrPC Section 258

Section 258 of the provides for the power of a Magistrate to quash legal proceedings in certain circumstances; especially summons cases that did not originate from a complaint. The Sections provide for the following:

• This Section allows a First Class Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate (with the previous sanction of Chief Judicial Magistrate) to stop the proceedings at any stage without delivering any judgment.
• The reasons for stopping the proceedings must be recorded.
• If the proceedings are stopped at such a time that most of the key witnesses have given evidence, the Magistrate will then pronounce an acquittal judgment.
• If the proceedings are stopped before the primary witnesses testify, then the Magistrate may release the accused. Such release would be equivalent to discharge.

Practical Examples Illustrating CrPC Section 258

• Non-compliant minor theft case: A young boy is caught red-handed for snatching a small thing from a shop, and the police register a case. While the magistrate is inquiring into the case, he learns that the accused has already returned the stolen thing and the shop owner does not want to continue with the case any further. For good reason, the magistrate stops the trial without delivering a full judgment and discharges the accused.
• Traffic violation case (non-compliant): A person is accused of contravening traffic rules. The proceeding is initiated by the traffic police. It came to be proved before the Magistrate that the contravention was very minor. The Magistrate feels it is not necessary to continue the rest of the trial. The Magistrate stopped the proceeding and discharged him.

Penalties And Punishments Under CrPC Section 258

Section 258 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to stop proceedings in certain cases. Therefore, the Section does not provide for any penalties or punishments for non-conformance with the provision.

Notable Case Laws Related To CrPC Section 258

Gupta Chemicals (P) Ltd. And Anr. vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ( 2001)

This was a case where the issue to be decided was whether or not Section 258 of the Code was applicable to the case filed under the Insecticide Act of 1968. In this case, the petitioners were the manufacturers of the insecticide and sought quashing of the criminal proceedings against them. One of the reasons on which they based their argument was that Section 258 of the Code should be invoked to stop the proceedings.

The High Court decided that in the facts and circumstances of this case, Section 258 of the Code was not applicable. It relied on the following factors for its decision:

• Section 258 CrPC is not applicable in all Cases: The court underlined the point that Section 258 of the Code confers the right to stop proceedings only in “summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint”.
• Nature of the Offence and Complaint: After observing that the offence in this case, as described in the complaint, was one punishable with a maximum of two years imprisonment or fine. Hence, the Court observed that the offence complained of fell within the definition of a “summons case” since it did not fall within the definition of a “warrant case”. It also took into consideration the fact that the complaint was filed before the Magistrate, who had taken cognizance of the offence.
• Conclusion Based on Legal Definitions: On the basis of these definitions and the facts of the case, it was concluded by the court that the case was instituted upon a complaint and thus Section 258 the Code, which would apply to summons cases instituted “otherwise than upon complaint”, could not be invoked.

M/S Meters And Instruments Private Limited & Anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta (2017)

This case deals with the issue of applicability of Section 258 of the Code while considering complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881. The court held that though Section 258, which provides for the stoppage of proceedings in summons cases, cannot be applied verbatim in the complaint case, its principle can very well be applied to a complaint case under the Act.

It was the rationale of the court that in such cases, the provisions of the Code apply “so far as may be”. Section 143 of the Act permits the application of provisions relating to summary trials “as far as possible.” The court thus held that the principles of Section 258 of the Code can be applied in a complaint case covered under Section 143 of the Act. The Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused if the court believes that the cheque amount, along with assessed costs and interest, has been paid and there is no justification in continuing the penal action.

Suo Motu Proceedings vs. State Of Kerala & Ors. (2023)

This case had come across the issue pertaining to summons cases under Section 258 of the Code. The Court held the following:

• The Court held that section 258 of the Code allows the Magistrates to bring the proceeding of summons cases to an end, without there being any decree, upon fulfilling certain conditions. This can occur at any stage of the proceedings if the Magistrate finds there are sound reasons which must be recorded. The court was careful to indicate that this power should be used discretely and only in appropriate circumstances where proceeding with the case would be an abuse of process, the accused being subjected to unduly prolonged harassment, or likely to result in injustice.
• The court clarified that Magistrates can stop the proceedings and release the accused if bringing them to court proves impossible due to some factors like an incorrect or fabricated address in the final report. However, this discretion should not be applied if the accused is evading summons or deliberately avoiding appearing after being served.
• The court provided for specific instruction for the Magistrates on petty offences and other summons cases requiring the attendance of the suspect, raising problems in this regard:
  • Petty Offences: Once the prosecution makes a clear admission before the Magistrates that it cannot locate the accused after such efforts, Magistrates would peruse the report from the prosecution. If the Magistrate is satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made or the cost of securing the presence of the accused is more than the maximum fine, Magistrates may pass a stoppage order under Section 258 of the Code.
  • Other Summons cases: As with the petty offences, Magistrates should look at the prosecution report if it would be problematic to bring the accused into court. Stoppage orders are allowed if the Magistrates are satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made to find the accused and that the cost of bringing them before the court outweighs the maximum fine.
• It was declared that the effects of an order under Section 258 of the Code when made in the absence of the accused should be held as a discharge. Hence, as prescribed by of the Code, the accused can be retried with the permission of the original court if he was to be located later.
• In doing so, the court overruled its own judgments passed in cases such as Crl.R.C.No.1869/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.5/2018, wherein it had restricted the operation of Section 258 to very limited situations. The Court held that the scope of Section 258 of the Code is not restricted to specific situation, like lack of prima facie case or technical defect. Instead, it would be open to be exercised wherever the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction thinks it impracticable to continue with such proceedings, especially where, despite best efforts, it is impossible to secure the presence of the accused.

Recent Changes

Section 258 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to stop the proceedings in certain cases prior to pronouncing the judgement. Section 439 of the Code has been retained without any changes under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Summary

Section 258 of the Code grants the Magistrate the power to stop a trial in some cases. This dismissal can be made only in summons cases that are not based on a complaint. Simply, it provides for the following:

• A Magistrate of first class or any other Magistrate (with permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate), may terminate the trial at any stage.
• The Magistrate should provide valid reasons in writing for stopping the trial.
• If the main witnesses have been heard, the Magistrate can declare the accused “not guilty.”
• But if the trial is stopped before that, then the Magistrate can release the accused which is treated like a discharge.

Key Insights & Quick Facts

• Section 258 of the Code applies to Summons cases not instituted on the basis of a complaint
• Magistrates are vested with the power to dismiss the trial at any stage without giving a judgement
• First-class Magistrate only can do it directly. Other Magistrates need to get approval from the Chief Judicial Magistrate before exercise of this power.
• Such a decision needs to be recorded in writing.
• If the testimonies of key witnesses have already been recorded, the Magistrate can declare the accused “acquitted”.
• Otherwise, the accused can be released, which is like discharge.