The Kerala High Court emphasized that any decision to dismiss a discharge order must be well-reasoned and not obscure.

“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 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” stated Justice A. Badharudeen

The Revision Petitioners were charged with various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 323 (punishment for causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt by dangerous means), 294(b) (obscene acts), 354 (assault with intent to outrage modesty of a woman), 354-A(1) (sexual harassment), 354-C (voyeurism), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 498A (cruelty by husband or relative of husband), along with Section 34 (acts done with common intention).

The accused appealed to the High Court after their request for discharge was denied by the Magistrate Court, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their discharge plea.

Citing precedents such as Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others (2022) and Nimmy Mathew v. State of Kerala (2023), the Court ruled that a discharge petition should not be rejected without providing a well-reasoned order.

In the current case, the Court noted that the order issued by the Magistrate dismissing the discharge plea was comprehensive. It pointed out that the Magistrate thoroughly examined the prosecution's allegations in meticulous detail, concluding that a prima facie case existed against the accused individuals. Consequently, the Court determined, "Therefore, this is not a case warranting discharge, and the matter shall proceed to trial."

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.

Counsel for Revision Petitioners: Advocates Mansoor B H, Sakeena Beegum

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates C Y Vinod Kumar, K A Jaleel