Court's Must State Reasons In Order Of Discharge; Cryptic & Non-Speaking Orders Are Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that the order of dismissal of discharge should be a reasoned order and not cryptic.“As far as the legal position regarding the essentials of an order of discharge is well settled. While passing an order of discharge by allowing the same or dismissing the same the Courts must have to state reasons for passing such orders and an order without recording reasons in...
The Kerala High Court held that the order of dismissal of discharge should be a reasoned order and not cryptic.
“As far as the legal position regarding the essentials of an order of discharge is well settled. While passing an order of discharge by allowing the same or dismissing the same the Courts must have to state reasons for passing such orders and an order without recording reasons in the form of cryptic and non-speaking stature would not sustain under the law” stated Justice A. Badharudeen
The Revision Petitioners were accused of committing offences alleged under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means or weapons), 294(b) (obscene act and songs), 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty of woman), 354-A(1) (punishment for sexual harassment)), 354-C (Voyeurism), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relative of husband) read with Section 34 (criminal intention) of IPC.
The accused approached the Magistrate Court seeking discharge which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of discharge, the accused have approached the High Court.
Relying upon the decisions in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others (2022) and Nimmy Mathew v. State of Kerala (2023), the Court held that the discharge petition should not be dismissed without a reasoned order.
In the present case, the Court stated that the order of dismissal of discharge passed by the Magistrate was detailed. It stated that the Magistrate has gone into entire prosecution allegations in minute niceties to state that a prime facie case was made out against the accused persons. It thus held, “Therefore, this is not a case of discharge and the matter shall go for trial.”
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.
Counsel for Revision Petitioners: Advocates Mansoor B H, Sakeena Beegum
Counsel for Respondents: Advocates C Y Vinod Kumar, K A Jaleel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 255
Case Title: Fazid v XXXXX
Case Number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 666 OF 2023