#discharge in criminal cases

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a Magistrate cannot reject a discharge application under Section 245 CrPC without recording detailed reasons explaining why the before-charge evidence, if unrebutted, would sustain a conviction. This procedural mandate ensures accountability and prevents arbitrary denial of discharge, safeguarding accused persons from prolonged litigation without prima facie case.

The Allahabad High Court set aside charges under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC, ruling that no prima facie case exists if the accused was in jail at the time of the suicide. The Court emphasized the absence of any proximate act or mens rea linking the accused to the victim’s death.

The Gujarat High Court discharged an advocate from POCSO and forgery charges, holding that merely advising marriage registration without actual knowledge of the victim’s minority or involvement in document fabrication cannot amount to a prima facie offence. This clarifies the boundary between professional legal assistance and criminal liability, offering critical protection to lawyers acting in good faith in sensitive family matters.

Calcutta High Court quashes proceedings against sister-in-law under Section 498A IPC where complaint lacked specific allegations, reinforcing that mechanical application invites abuse of process.

Gauhati High Court clarifies the standard for discharge under Section 227 CrPC, holding that absence of grave suspicion justifies discharge even in murder cases.

Kerala High Court holds that casual words in heat of argument cannot constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without proven intent to instigate.