What's In A Name? Sikkim HC Upholds CJM’s Order That ‘Quashed’ A Complaint For Want Of Sanction Interpreting It As Order Of Discharge [Read Judgment]

“There is a fundamental difference between dismissal and quashing. To dismiss would imply to terminate without further hearing and to quash would mean to annul or make void.”The Sikkim High Court has upheld an order of magistrate that ‘quashed’ a complaint against police officers for want of sanction, by interpreting it as an order of discharge.Explaining the difference. To dismiss would imply to terminate without further hearing and to quash would mean to annul or make void.” The Sikkim High Court has upheld an order of magistrate that ‘quashed’ a complaint against police officers for want of sanction, by interpreting it as an order of discharge. To dismiss would imply to terminate without further hearing and to quash would mean to annul or make void.” The CJM, in this case, had taken cognizance and summoned three accused and at a later stage allowed applications under Section 197 CrPC and ‘quashed’ the complaint as against two accused for want of sanction. The issue considered by the high court was whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate “quashing” the complaint would amount to a discharge under Section 245 CrPC.