Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on August 29, 2024 said Section 216 CrPC does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge under Section 227 CrPC has already been dismissed. 

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma said the practice of filing of such applications as "highly deplorable" and it must be dealt with sternly, since once such an application is filed, it has to be decided by the trial court, derailing the proceedings.

"Unfortunately, such applications are being filed in the trial courts sometimes in ignorance of law and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings. Once such applications though untenable are filed, the trial courts have no alternative but to decide them, and then again such orders would be challenged before the higher courts, and the whole criminal trial would get derailed," the bench said.

The court pointed out that Section 216 is an enabling provision which enables the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, and if any alternation or addition to a charge is made, the court has to follow the procedure as contained therein. 

It allowed an appeal against the Madras High Court's order which by an extremely unusual and untenable judgment on July 27, 2017, had set aside the order framing charges for murder, and other serious offences and directed further investigation into the matter.

The FIR was filed in 2009 by complainant K Ravi with regard to murder of his brother by a rival group of AIDMK during the filing of nomination for office bearers of the party at Dharampuri.

In the case, the court noted the accused after having failed to get himself discharged from the Sessions Court as well as from the High Court in the first round of litigation, filed another vexatious application before the Sessions Court under Section 216 of CrPC, after the framing of charge by the Sessions Court, for modification of the charge. 

After the Sessions Court dismissed the said application, the accused preferred the revisional application before the High Court under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC. 

"The High Court in its unusual impugned order, discharged the Respondent No 2 (A-2) from the charges levelled against him, though his earlier application seeking discharge was already dismissed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court and that position had attained finality," the bench said.

The High Court utterly failed to realise that the order impugned against it was the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application of the Respondent No 2 seeking modification of the charge framed against him under Section 216 of CrPC, and the said order was an order of interlocutory in nature, the bench added.

The court also pointed out the order dismissing application seeking modification of charge would be an interlocutory order and in view of the express bar contained in sub-section (2) of Section 397 CrPC, the revision application itself was not maintainable.

"The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that subsection 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge," the bench said. 

The bench said the court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application for modification of the charge under Section 216 CrPC, which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order.

In the case, the bench said, "The High Court, on an absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard of the settled legal position, allowed the revision application filed by the Respondent No. 2, though legally untenable, and set aside the charge framed by the Sessions Court against the Respondent No 2. The said order being ex facie illegal, untenable and dehors the material on record, the same deserves to be set aside," the bench said.

The court also imposed Rs 50,000 as cost on respondent to be paid to the appellant within two weeks for "having sufficiently derailed the proceedings by filing frivolous and untenable applications one after the other misusing the process of law".

The bench directed the Sessions Court to proceed further with the trial against all the accused including the Respondent No 2 in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 

"All the parties are directed to cooperate the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that non-cooperation of any of the accused in proceeding with the trial shall entail cancellation o

f their bail," the bench warned.