In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Angul, rejecting a discharge plea filed by petitioner Shyam Sundar Agrawalla in a criminal case dating back to 2005. Justice Sashikanta Mishra, while deciding CRLMC No. 3159 of 2024, emphasized that lower courts must provide detailed reasons for both allowing and rejecting discharge petitions under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C.
Background of the Case
The dispute originates from an industrial property auctioned by the Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC) in favor of Shyam Sundar Agrawalla on February 28, 2002. The complainant, identified as Opposite Party No.2, had previously challenged this auction before the High Court through OJC No. 3777 of 2002, obtaining a stay order on the transfer.
Despite the stay, Agrawalla allegedly trespassed into the factory premises on October 22, 2004, dismantled the unit, and removed machinery worth approximately Rs. 12 lakhs. Following an FIR filed by the complainant on July 20, 2005, Bantala P.S. Case No. 45 of 2005 was registered under Sections 447, 448, 427, 379, 294, and 506 of the IPC. However, after an initial investigation, the police filed a final report on December 27, 2006.
In 2012, six years later, the complainant filed a protest petition, leading to the registration of ICC Case No. 74 of 2012 in the SDJM Court, Angul. The trial court took cognizance of the offenses after an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Agrawalla filed multiple discharge petitions, arguing that no prima facie case was made out against him, but these were repeatedly dismissed by the JMFC and the Sessions Court. His previous petition, CRLMC No. 166 of 2021, had been disposed of with the liberty to raise the same grounds at the appropriate stage of the trial.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The core legal issue in the case was whether the trial court had adequately justified its decision to reject Agrawalla’s discharge plea. Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., which governs discharge in warrant cases, requires the Magistrate to record reasons when deciding whether to discharge an accused.
Justice Mishra pointed out that the trial court’s order merely cited the presence of prima facie evidence without addressing the specific grounds raised by the petitioner. The judgment observed:
“What the Court cited as reason to reject the application is actually supposed to be the reason for framing charge, the stage of which had not yet come.”
The High Court reiterated the principle established in Shibaram Sahu v. State of Odisha (Vigilance) Department, where it was held that a discharge petition must be adjudicated through a reasoned order, ensuring that all grounds raised by the accused are duly considered.
High Court’s Decision
The High Court found that the trial court’s approach did not align with legal requirements. It ruled that:
“It is incumbent upon the court to record its reasons for accepting or not accepting the specific grounds urged by the accused to discharge him from the case.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the CRLMC and remitted the case back to the trial court, directing it to reconsider Agrawalla’s discharge application and issue a fresh, well-reasoned order.
