Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the defacto complainant against the High Court's order discharging the second accused in a murder case. The case arose from an FIR registered in 2009 for offences including murder and rioting. The accused (Respondent No. 2) had earlier failed to secure discharge under Section 227 CrPC, and the Sessions Court framed charges against him. Thereafter, the accused filed an application under Section 216 CrPC seeking modification of charge, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The High Court, in revision, set aside the charge and directed further investigation. The Supreme Court held that the order dismissing the modification application was interlocutory and not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC. The Court emphasized that Section 216 does not give the accused a right to seek discharge after charge is framed, and the High Court's interference was beyond its limited revisional jurisdiction. The Court restored the Sessions Court's order, imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the accused, and directed expeditious trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Interlocutory Order - Section 397(2) CrPC - An order dismissing an application for modification of charge under Section 216 CrPC is an interlocutory order, and revision against such order is barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. The High Court erred in entertaining the revision and discharging the accused. (Paras 7-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Charge - Alteration - Section 216 CrPC - Section 216 is an enabling provision for the court to alter or add charge at any time before judgment; it does not confer a right on the accused to seek discharge after charge is framed, especially when an earlier discharge application under Section 227 CrPC has been dismissed. (Para 11) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope - Section 397 CrPC - Revisional jurisdiction is limited and can be exercised only where the decision is grossly erroneous, based on no evidence, or perverse. The High Court cannot interfere with an order framing charge or dismissing a modification application in routine manner. (Paras 9-10) D) Criminal Procedure Code - Abuse of Process - Frivolous Applications - Filing successive vexatious applications to delay trial is deplorable and must be dealt with sternly. Costs imposed on accused for misuse of process. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could entertain a revision against an order dismissing an application for modification of charge under Section 216 CrPC, and whether the High Court could discharge the accused in such revision.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of High Court set aside. Order of Sessions Court restored. Respondent No. 2 to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to appellant within two weeks. Sessions Court to proceed with trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Interlocutory order under Section 216 CrPC not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC
- Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors
- Section 216 does not give right to seek discharge after charge framed
- Frivolous applications to derail trial deprecated
