[Section 228 CrPC] Before Framing Charges, Judges Must Form An Opinion That There Were Grounds To Presume Accused Committed Alleged Offence: Kerala HC

It stated that if there were no sufficient grounds, then the judge shall discharge the accused by recording specific reasons for discharge as per Section 227 CrPC. Further, it stated that if the Court was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds, then the judge shall frame charges against the accused under Section 228 CrPC.

“Even after such consideration and hearing the submissions, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, he shall frame the charge against the accused. So it is imperative under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., that before the Judge proceeds to frame the charge, he has to form an opinion, that there is ground for presuming that, the accused has committed the offence.”, stated Justice Sophy Thomas

The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the charges framed against him.

The petitioner alleges that the Trial Court has framed the charges against him without forming an opinion as to the grounds for presuming that he has committed the offences alleged or a finding to the effect that no sufficient grounds were there for a discharge.

It was alleged that even though he had pleaded not guilty and was heard under Section 227 CrPC for discharge, the judge proceeded to frame charges without forming an opinion as to whether there were grounds for presuming that the accused had committed the offence alleged.

Relying upon State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy and Others (1977), it was argued that it was the duty of the Court to consider judicially whether material warrants the framing of charges.

Section 227 CrPC provides for discharge and Section 228 CrPC pertains to framing of charges.

On analysing Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, the Court stated that the judge has to consider records, documents submitted and hear the submissions of the prosecution and accused before discharging or framing charges against the accused.

In the facts of the case, the Court found that the judge did not form an opinion that there were grounds for presuming that the petitioner had committed the alleged offences. It thus quashed the charges framed against the petitioner.

The Court also directed the Trial Judge to hear both sides and consider the documents and records submitted to form an opinion as to whether were grounds for discharge or for presuming that the accused has committed the offences alleged before proceeding to frame charges.

“In the result, Annexure-A5 charge framed by the trial court is quashed, and the learned trial Judge is directed to hear the prosecution and the petitioner once again under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. consider the record of the case and documents submitted, and thereafter form an opinion as to whether there is ground for a discharge and if not whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offences alleged. If the learned Judge forms an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offences alleged then a fresh charge has to be framed against him.”

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates V.Philip Mathews E.Radhakrishnan Aby Skaria, Seba Anna Simon

Counsel for the Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

Case title: Litty Thomas v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 818 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order