Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court revisional order that had effectively discharged an accused in a murder case on his challenge to the dismissal of a Section 216 CrPC application. An order refusing to alter a charge is interlocutory, so revision was barred by Section 397(2); and Section 216 gives an accused no right to seek discharge afresh once his Section 227 discharge plea has failed.
Issues
- Whether a revision under Section 397 CrPC lies against a Sessions Court order dismissing an application for modification of charge under Section 216 CrPC.
- Whether an accused whose discharge application under Section 227 CrPC has been finally rejected can seek, in effect, discharge again through an application under Section 216 CrPC.
- Whether the High Court rightly set aside the charge framed against the second respondent.
Provisions considered
- Section 397 (with Section 401), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An order dismissing an application to modify a charge is interlocutory, so sub-section (2) barred the revision; even under sub-section (1) revisional power is to be used sparingly, only for grossly erroneous decisions, non-compliance with law, findings on no evidence, ignored material evidence or arbitrary exercise of discretion. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- Section 216, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Read as an enabling provision allowing the court to alter or add to a charge before judgment, following the procedure it prescribes; it confers no right on the accused to apply for discharge after the charge is framed. (¶¶ 6, 10, 11)
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The second respondent's discharge application had been dismissed by the Sessions Court and that dismissal upheld in revision by the High Court, which had attained finality; it could not be reopened through a Section 216 application. (¶¶ 5, 7, 11, 12)
Held
- An order dismissing an application for modification of a charge under Section 216 CrPC is interlocutory in nature, and the express bar in Section 397(2) CrPC makes a revision against it not maintainable. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10)
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) is very limited and must be exercised sparingly; a revisional court should be extremely circumspect in interfering with an order framing charge. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Section 216 CrPC enables the court to alter or add to a charge at any time before judgment; it does not entitle the accused to file a fresh application for discharge after the charge is framed, particularly when his application under Section 227 has already been dismissed. Filing such applications, whether in ignorance of law or to delay the trial, derails criminal proceedings and should be dealt with sternly. (¶ 11)
- The High Court, on extraneous considerations and contrary to settled law, set aside the charge framed against the second respondent although his discharge plea had already failed in both courts; the order was ex facie illegal and contrary to the record, and costs were imposed for misuse of process. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and the Sessions Court order restored; costs of Rs. 50,000 payable by the second respondent to the appellant within two weeks, to be deposited first in the Supreme Court registry; trial to proceed expeditiously, and non-cooperation by any accused to entail cancellation of bail.