Case Overview:

The discussion centers on a real-life example where a husband filed for discharge in a domestic violence (DV) case under the Domestic Violence Act, invoking Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC).

Watch full video discussing this case on Youtube:
https://youtu.be/m1Pco54pt6w

Legal Context & Misconceptions:

Section 245 CRPC deals with discharge of the accused after evidence is taken under Section 244, which applies to warrant cases (offenses punishable by death, life imprisonment, or terms exceeding two years).

DV cases are generally not considered warrant cases or even criminal offenses, except for violations under Section 31 (breach of protection orders), as clarified by a Karnataka High Court judgment.

Applications for discharge, as understood under the CRPC, are not typically applicable to DV proceedings, yet many are tempted to file them.

Case Outcome & Judicial Reasoning:

In the discussed case, the husband’s discharge application was dismissed.

The magistrate’s order indicated that the respondent’s (husband’s) contentions should be decided in a full trial, not at the initial stage.

The judgment’s language was described as unclear, but the gist was that there was enough material on record to proceed, and the respondent’s explanations were not sufficiently supported by documents.

Practical Advice & Warnings:

Filing for discharge in DV cases is often counterproductive:

It delays the trial.
Increases legal costs.
May lead to psychological disappointment if dismissed.

Dismissal of the petition can still be sought in the written statement (WS) or objections, without the need for a separate discharge application.

The speaker cautions against filing unnecessary or ill-advised applications, emphasizing that such actions rarely lead to early dismissal and can prolong the litigation process.

Conclusion

The main takeaway is that discharge applications under Sections 245 or 239 CRPC are generally inapplicable to domestic violence proceedings. Filing them can waste time, increase costs, and rarely results in early dismissal. Instead, parties should focus on substantive defenses in their written statements and avoid unnecessary procedural applications.