As per case facts, the respondent filed a private complaint against police officers for torture, leading to a long-drawn legal battle. After an initial committal order was reversed and the ... case directed to be tried as a warrant case, the proceedings stalled for years, primarily due to various challenges by the accused to interlocutory orders, progressing only to the complainant's examination-in-chief. The appellants, two of the surviving accused, filed appeals: one seeking discharge under a state amendment to Section 245(3) Cr.P.C. for the prosecution's failure to adduce all evidence within four years, and another challenging the quashing of proceedings by a Single Judge on grounds of inordinate delay and violation of speedy trial rights. The question arose whether discharge under Section 245(3) Cr.P.C. is automatic on the lapse of the four-year period, whether uncross-examined deposition constitutes 'evidence', and if the prolonged trial infringed the right to speedy trial. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, ruling that discharge under Section 245(3) is not automatic, allowing the Magistrate discretion if justice demands it, based on existing evidence and special reasons like the nature of the crime and the accused's delaying tactics. It clarified that even uncross-examined deposition can be considered 'evidence' and that in this case, the right to speedy trial was not violated, urging superior courts to refrain from interfering with trials on interlocutory matters to ensure timely justice.