MONIKA Vs. MADHU JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY , the application under Section 242(2) of Cr.P.C. for discharge has been filed at a stage when the trial is virtually over. The trial Court has re -fused to exercise the discretion on the ground that at this stage, the accused can either be convicted or acquitted. He cannot be discharged. The reason given by the trial Court for dismissing the application is not legally tenable. It is a settled proposition of law that application for discharge can be entertained and decided by the trial Court at any stage of the trial depending on the material before the trial Court, However, dismissal of the application of the petitioner cannot at this stage be said to be have caused any miscarriage of justice.

(2.) I n view of the above, I find that this would be a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and for quashing further proceedings. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points which were raised in the application for discharge as also the points raised in this petition before the trial Court at the time of final arguments. The petitioner is at liberty to make an application for exemption from personal appearance immediately, on her statement is recorded by the trial Court under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.