Supreme Court Deplores Practice Of Filing Applications U/S 216 CrPC For Alteration Of Charge After Refusal Of Discharge

The Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma elaborated that this provision does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the framing of charges. Especially, when a discharge application filed by accused has already been dismissed under Section 227 of CrPC.

The Bench highlighted that once these applications are filed, Trial Court have no option but to decide them. Following this, the same are challenged before the High Court and this leads to derailment of the whole criminal trial.

Terming such practice as “highly deplorable,” the Court said that it should be dealt with sternly by the courts.

“Section 216 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 has already been dismissed. 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. Suffice it to say that such practice is highly deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts.”

In the present appeal, arising out of a murder trial, after the accused was denied discharge from the Sessions Court as well as from the High Court in the first round of litigation, he filed another application under Section 216. After the dismissal of the same by the Sessions Court, he approached the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court allowed his appeal and discharged him. To this effect, the Top Court observed:

“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 Cr.P.C., and the said order was an order of interlocutory in nature.”

As per the facts of the present case, the present appellant (ADMK Ravi) had filed an FIR against nine accused, including the present respondent, under several offences including murder. According to the allegations, the accused persons the complainant and his group from filing the nomination at AIADMK Party Office at Dharmapuri. While the accused persons allegedly murdered appellant's brother, they also assaulted him.

When the respondent's discharge application was dismissed by the Sessions and the High Court, he took the recourse of Section 216. As stated, the same was allowed by the High Court. Thus, the present appeal.

Playing its reliance on Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, the Top Court observed that the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (revisional jurisdiction) is extremely limited.

“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 Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order.,” it added.

Without mincing its words, the Court said that the revision application was allowed “on an absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard of the settled legal position.” Describing the High Court's order to be illegal, untenable and dehors the material on record, the Court set the same aside.

In furtherance to this, a cost of Rs. 50,000 was levied on the respondent for filing frivolous and untenable applications. This amount was directed to be deposited within two weeks and the same shall be withdrawn by the appellant.

“The Sessions Court is directed to proceed further with the trial against all the accused including the Respondent No. 2 (A-2) in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.,” the Court concluded.

Case Details: K. RAVI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.2029 OF 2018

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 624

Click here to read/ download the order