Allahabad High Court

JAGDISH SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA

Holding

A magistrate may consider and dispose of an application under Section 245(1) CrPC and can discharge the accused even before the completion of the procedure under Section 244, rendering the impugned order illegal.

Summary

The revisionists Jagdish Singh and others filed a criminal revision challenging the order of the Gram Court Magistrate dated 5 September 2024, which rejected their application under Section 245(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on the ground that the evidentiary stage under Section 244 CrPC had not been completed due to their continuous absence. The High Court examined the provisions of Sections 245(1) and 245(2) CrPC and held that a magistrate may discharge an accused at any stage, even before the completion of the Section 244 procedure, provided reasons are recorded. Consequently, the magistrate’s rejection of the application as non‑maintainable was deemed erroneous. The Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and directed the lower court to pass a fresh order in light of the evidence on record. The parties were ordered to appear before the lower court on 20 May 2026.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 245(1) CrPC is maintainable before the completion of the evidentiary stage under Section 244 CrPC.
Whether the magistrate erred in rejecting the application on the ground of non‑completion of Section 244.
Whether the absence of the accused affects the magistrate’s power to discharge under Section 245.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 244, 245
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506

Subjects

criminal revision
Section 245 CrPC
Section 244 CrPC
discharge of accused
magistrate's powers
procedural law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5757 of 2024

Jagdish Singh And 3 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vivek Kumar Singh

Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. No one is present on behalf of the revisionists to press the revision,
even though the name of Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh is duly published in the
cause list as learned counsel for revisionists.

2. On the previous occasion, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has declined
to file any counter affidavit. The revision has been pending since 2024.

3. In view of above, disposal of this revision on merits, without affording
an opportunity to the revisionists, is expedient.

4. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh for O.P. 2 and Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned
A.G.A. for State/O.P. No. 1 and perused the record.

5. The present revision has been preferred by the revisionists assailing the
impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Judge, Gram Court,
Amritpur, Farrukhabad (herein after referred to as "Jurisdictional
Magistrate") in Complaint Case No. 511 of 2023 (Ram Naresh Vs.
Jagdish and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Rajepur,
District Farrukhabad, whereby the jurisdictional Magistrate rejected the
application of the revisionists under Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C., stating that
proceedings under section 244 Cr.P.C. could not be initiated due to the
continuous absence of the revisionist. It was further observed that since
the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. had not been completed, the application
under section 245(2) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
CRLR No. 5757 of 2024
2

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the present criminal revision
has been filed on the ground that the impugned order is bad in law, having
been passed without applying judicial mind and considering the
applicable law, the revision deserves to be allowed.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for O.P.2 have
vehemently opposed the criminal revision and submitted that the
statements of the complainant's witnesses under Section 244 Cr.P.C.
could not be recorded till today due to continuous absence of revisionists.
It is further submitted that proceedings under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C arise
only after completion of procedure under section 244 Cr.P.C. The
impugned order is just and has been rightly passed by the jurisdictional
Magistrate. The impugned order suffers from no illegality and thus
deserves to be affirmed and, therefore, present revision is liable to be
dismissed.

8. Having heard the submissions urged by learned counsel for O.P. No. 2
as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and considering the provisions
contained in Section 245 Cr.P.C., the same are reproduced as under :

"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."

9. Considering the above provision, in my view, an application under
Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. can be decided only after consideration of
evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. However, Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C.
provides that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the
Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage, meaning
CRLR No. 5757 of 2024
3

thereby jurisdiction Magistrate can pass the order even before the
completion of procedure under section 244 Cr.P.C. The court is the
master of its procedure. It is court's duty to examine the application
presented before it and determine whether it is maintainable under the
relevant provision or any other provision. If such application is
maintainable under any other provision, the same must be considered and
such application can not be held as not maintainable. Therefore, the
findings recorded by the jurisdiction Magistrate is not correct in law.

10. In view of the above, the jurisdictional Magistrate should have passed
the order in the light of evidence available on record, but the same
application can not be rejected on the ground of maintainability under
Section 245(i) Cr.P.C.. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.

11. The present revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the
jurisdiction Magistrate is hereby set aside.

12. The Court concerned is directed to pass a fresh order in the light of
observation made by this court.

13. Parties are directed to appear before the court concerned on
20.05.2026.

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
May 6, 2026
RPD

Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…