Order denying or allowing discharge from criminal case cannot be cryptic: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently emphasized the importance of passing reasoned orders while deciding on petitions by accused persons who seek their discharge from a criminal case [Fazid & Ors v XXXX & Ors]..Such decisions should not be cryptic or lacking in explanation, explained Justice A Badharudeen. "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," the Court's April 2 order stated..The Court was considering a criminal revision petition where the revision petitioners (petitioners) were accused of various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as assault (Section 354), sexual harassment (Section 354-A), voyeurism (Section 354-C), cruelty by husband (Section 498A), criminal breach of trust (Section 406), etc..The petitioners had earlier filed a plea seeking their discharge from the case before a magistrate court. After the trial court rejected their discharge plea, they moved the High Court for relief and questioned the correctness of the magistrate's order. .The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the magistrate had dismissed their petition without providing any proper reasoning.He added that while dismissing a discharge order, it is essential that the court must not be cryptic and must clearly lay out the reasons for such dismissal..The public prosecutor and the counsel for the defacto complainant, countered that the magistrate had analysed the prosecution's case, and the witness statements before passing an order dismissing the discharge petition, as a prima facie case existed against the accused individuals..The High Court after going through relevant precedents reiterated that discharge petitions should not be dismissed without thorough consideration.The Court proceeded to find that the magistrate's decision to dismiss the discharge petition was well-detailed and concluded that this was not a suitable scenario to discharge the accused. The matter should proceed to trial, the High Court held. ."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. Therefore, this is not a case of discharge and the matter shall go for trial," the High Court said..It, therefore, upheld the dismissal of the criminal revision petition..The review petitioners were represented by advocates Mansoor B H and Sakeena Beegum.Public Prosecutor K A Jaleel appeared for the State and advocate CY Vinod Kumar appeared for the defacto complainant..[Read Order]