Cannot Act As Post Office: Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams Mechanical Charge Orders By Trial Courts

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an order framing charges against an accused in a criminal case, holding that trial courts cannot mechanically proceed without disclosing the material that forms the basis of their satisfaction. In doing so, the Court underscored that even at the stage of framing of charge, judicial application of mind must be evident from the order itself.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal was dealing with a criminal revision filed by Sanjay Jatav, who had challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Berasia, framing charges under Sections 351(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). The petitioner, represented by Advocate Surdeep Khampariya, argued that even on a plain reading of the FIR and the victim’s statements, no prima facie case was made out against him, particularly for the offence involving criminal intimidation of a grave nature. The State, represented by Panel Lawyer Ritesh Sharma, supported the trial court’s decision.

The High Court noted that the FIR primarily contained allegations against a co-accused, with the present petitioner being implicated on the basis of alleged threats to disclose private information and cause social embarrassment. However, significantly, there was no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner had threatened the victim with death, a key ingredient required to sustain a charge under Section 351(3) of the BNS (corresponding to Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). Despite this, the trial court proceeded to frame such a charge without indicating the material on which it relied.

Flagging this omission, the Court observed that “the impugned order is silent as to the document on the basis of which the court has inferred the aforesaid allegation of threatening,” thereby casting doubt on the very foundation of the charge. It further held that the order was non-speaking and failed to disclose any reasoning or material supporting the conclusion that sufficient grounds existed to proceed against the accused.

Importantly, the Court reiterated the settled legal position that while detailed reasoning is not required at the stage of framing charges, the order must nevertheless reflect application of mind. Relying on precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court emphasized that a trial judge cannot act as a “post office” of the prosecution and must independently evaluate whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case. The Court also stressed that if two views are possible and the material raises only suspicion rather than grave suspicion, the accused is entitled to discharge.

Applying these principles, the High Court found that the trial court had failed to indicate what material led it to conclude that the ingredients of the alleged offences were satisfied. The dismissal of the discharge application under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), was also found to be unsupported by reasons, despite the petitioner specifically raising the absence of prima facie evidence.

The Court further clarified the scope of revisional jurisdiction, observing that in the absence of findings by the subordinate court, the High Court cannot undertake an independent appreciation of evidence. Instead, the appropriate course is to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the trial court to pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law.

In a significant concluding direction, the Court also addressed the role of judicial officers, directing that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice for circulation across the State. The objective, the Court noted, was to ensure that trial courts adhere to the requirement of reflecting judicial satisfaction while framing charges and avoid similar lapses in future.

Case Title: Sanjay Jatav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through The Police Station Berasiya and Another

Date of Order: April 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal