28.8.2026 16 sb CRR 2948 of 2025 Chumki Pal @ Chumki Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Surajit Basu Ms. Jasika Alam … for the Petitioner Mr. Sagar Saha Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay …for the State In this application, the petitioner is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 2.5.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Chinsurah. By the impugned order, learned court below has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for discharge observing that the quality of evidence which has been turned up, constitutes offences against the petitioner and therefore, there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has not duly considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner had taken a specific alibi, which stands reflected from the RTI report dated 28.2.2025, that on 2nd June, 2022, the petitioner had reported for her duty as Civic Volunteer at 11 hours to perform her duties on 03.06.2022 and got released after the said duty on 03.06.2022 at 18:15 hours and therefore, the petitioner’s presence at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence is improbable, which the court below did not consider at the time of charge hearing. The 2 impugned order is therefore bad in law and is liable to be set aside and thereby the petitioner may be discharged. Learned counsel for the State opposed such prayer contending that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner to proceed further with the trial and this is not a fit case where the proceeding can be quashed invoking this Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have considered the submission made on behalf of both the parties. The main ground taken by the petitioner in support of her discharge petition is the report given by RTI authority, which discloses that the petitioner was released from her duty on 3.6.3022 at 18.55 hours. It further appears from the impugned order that the court below had taken note of such submission and found certain infirmities with regard to the response to the said reply. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the report given by RTI authority, which the petitioner has heavily relied upon in support of her discharge prayer, is not an unimpeachable document. Section 245 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:- “245. When accused shall be discharged. (1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. 3 Generally, the Magistrate is not required to record his detailed reasons for framing the charge against the accused. Here upon hearing the parties and based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in the charge sheet, the concerned Magistrate was satisfied and has specifically recorded that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused/petitioner. At this stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient grand to proceed against the accused. It is well settled that the presumption of the guilt of the accused at this stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, fails to show that the accused has committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. (Sajjan Kumar’s Case, (2010) 9 SCC 368) Since this is not the situation in the instant case, it would not be justified for the High Court to interfere with the order impugned passed by the trial court. Since the court below by a reasoned order, has come to a conclusion that he has sufficient reasons to proceed with the 4 trial, I find that the court below has not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for discharge. In view of above, CRR 2948 of 2025 is hereby dismissed. However, the court below is directed to proceed for expeditious disposal of the said proceeding. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)