Order Of Discharge Without Recording Reasons In The Form Of Cryptic And Non-Speaking Stature Not Sustainable: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that an order of discharge without recording reasons in the form of cryptic and non-speaking stature would not be sustained under the law.
During the proceedings, the petitioners argued that the trial court dismissed their discharge petition by a cryptic and non-speaking order. They contended that the prosecution's allegations were not supported by adequate evidence.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “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.”
Advocate Mansoor B.H. represented the petitioners, while Advocate C.Y. Vinod Kumar appeared for the respondents.
The petitioners sought relief under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the order of the trial court which had dismissed their plea for discharge of allegations made by the prosecution under Sections 323, 324, 294(b), 354, 354-A(1), 354-C, 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.
In response, the prosecution placed on record the comprehensive seven-page order issued by the trial court. They asserted that the trial court had meticulously examined the prosecution's case, witness statements, and evidence before concluding that a prima facie case existed against the accused under Section 498A of the IPC.
“On a reading of the order, the learned Magistrate discussed the entire allegations in minute niceties while addressing the prosecution case and found that clear allegations were made against all the accused which would attract the offence under Section 498A of IPC. On perusal of prosecution records, the same would substantiate prima facie that the allegations would constitute an offence under Section 498A of IPC, prima facie against all the petitioners herein,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Fazid & Ors. v. XXX & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:28463)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Mansoor B.H. and Sakeena Beegum
Respondents: Advocates C.Y. Vinod Kumar and K.A.Jaleel
