Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks about the power of a Magistrate under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section falls under Chapter XIX, which deals with the "Trial of Warrant-Cases by Magistrates."
Step 2: Key Legal Provision:
Section 239 of the CrPC is titled "When accused shall be discharged."
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The procedure in a warrant case instituted on a police report involves several stages. After the police report and documents are submitted, the Magistrate considers them and gives the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard.
- Section 239 CrPC states that if, upon considering the police report and the documents and after hearing the parties, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. This directly matches option (B).
- If the Magistrate believes there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then under the next section, Section 240 CrPC, he shall frame a charge in writing against the accused. So, option (A) is the next step if the accused is not discharged.
- Option (C) relates to the evidence stage, which comes after the charge is framed.
- Option (D), conviction on a plea of guilty, is dealt with under Section 241 CrPC.
Step 4: Final Answer:
Under Section 239 CrPC, the Magistrate can discharge the accused if the charges are found to be groundless.
Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, and on perusal of the ma terial on record, the primary issue which arises for consideration of this Court is ”whether a review or recall of an order passed in a criminal proceeding initiated under section 340 of CrPC is permissible or not?” [...] A careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the aforesaid decisions of this Court clarify the now-well settled position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of CrPC which when summarized would be that the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or reviewing in their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable. Despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands clarified that it is only in situations wherein an application for recall of an order or judgment seeking a procedural review that the bar would not apply and not a substantive review where the bar as contained in Section 362 CrPC is attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court have also elaborated that the bar under said provision is to be applied stricto sensu.
(Extracted with edits and revisions from Vikram Bakshi v. RP Khosla 2025 INSC 1020)