The Orissa High Court has clarified that magistrates must record reasons when allowing or rejecting a discharge petition filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice Sashikanta Mishra emphasized that the phrase "and record his reasons for so doing" in Section 245 applies to both acceptance and rejection of such petitions.
Case Background
The case involved Opposite Party No. 2, who had established an industry with financial assistance from the Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC), Angul Branch. On March 3, 2001, the OSFC seized the industry and later auctioned it to the petitioner on February 28, 2002. The affected party challenged this auction before the High Court, which issued a stay order against the transfer.
However, despite the stay order, the petitioner allegedly trespassed onto the factory premises on October 22, 2004, dismantled structures, and removed machinery worth approximately Rs. 12 lakhs. Consequently, an FIR was lodged on July 20, 2005, leading to a criminal case under Sections 447, 448, 427, 379, 294, and 506 IPC. Following an investigation, a final report was submitted on December 27, 2006.
Years later, in 2012, Opposite Party No. 2 filed a protest petition before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Angul, leading to the registration of ICC Case No. 74 of 2012. After conducting an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, the trial court took cognizance of offenses under Sections 447, 448, 427, 380, and 506 IPC.
The petitioner then filed a discharge application, arguing that no prima facie case was made out against him. However, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Angul, rejected the application on June 7, 2018. The petitioner pursued relief before the Sessions Judge, Angul, but his plea was dismissed on February 27, 2020.
Seeking further redressal, he moved the Orissa High Court, which granted him permission to present his discharge plea again before the trial court. However, on May 19, 2023, the trial court dismissed the petition once again, prompting the petitioner to file a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Court's Observations
Upon reviewing the case, the Orissa High Court noted that the JMFC had abruptly dismissed the discharge application by merely stating that the available evidence supported the charges. However, the court found that the trial court failed to address specific arguments raised by the petitioner.
“Not a whisper has been made as to why the grounds urged by the petitioner to discharge him from the case were considered unacceptable… Whether the same would ultimately be acceptable or not is a thing that can be decided only if the same is considered. But without even considering the grounds raised, it cannot be said that there are no grounds to discharge the petition.”
Justice Mishra examined Section 245 CrPC, which mandates that if the magistrate finds no evidence to sustain a conviction, the accused must be discharged “for reasons to be recorded.”
The court clarified that while recording reasons is not mandatory for framing charges, it is a settled legal principle that rejecting a discharge petition and framing charges are distinct legal steps. The magistrate must deal with the discharge petition first before considering framing of charges.
“The language used in Section 245, ‘and record his reasons for so doing’ cannot refer only to a case where the application for discharge is allowed and not when the same is rejected.”
Justice Mishra referred to the court’s ruling in Shibaram Sahu v. State of Odisha (Vigilance Department) (2021), where it was held:
Read Also:- Orissa High Court Declares Prolonged Undertrial Detention Over 6 Years Violates Right to Speedy Trial
“When an application for discharge is filed, the same has to be disposed of by a reasoned order, which is clear from the use of the expression ‘and record his reasons for so doing’ in Section 239 which obviously cannot refer only to a case where the application for discharge is allowed but not when the same is rejected.”
Given the magistrate’s failure to provide reasons for rejecting the discharge plea, the High Court found the trial court’s order legally unsustainable. The court ruled that the failure to assign reasons violated the principles of procedural fairness.
“The impugned order falls short of the above salutary requirement of law by a long margin and therefore, cannot be sustained.”
Consequently, the High Court quashed the JMFC's order and remitted the case back for reconsideration. The trial court was directed to re-examine the discharge petition and issue a fresh, reasoned order.
Case Title: Shyam Sundar Agrawalla v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Case No: CRLMC No. 3159 of 2024
Date of Judgment: March 04, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Mr. S. Behera, Addl. Govt. Advocate; Mr. S.C. Mishra, Advocate
