Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petition of Accused in Murder Case Challenging Framing of Charges. Trial Court's Order Framing Charges Against Sitting MLA Upheld as No Material Irregularity Found in Prima Facie Case.

Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC challenging the order of the trial court framing charges in a murder case.

The petitioner sought to quash the order framing charges dated 6.12.2023 in Spl.C.C.No.565/2021 and to call for the records of the case.

The petitioner alleged that the trial court framed charges without any material on record, without proper application of mind, without furnishing all documents, and in the absence of sanction under the Arms Act.

The trial court framed charges on 6.12.2023; earlier, the petitioner had filed and then withdrawn a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC; the case was initially investigated by the State Police, then by the CBI after consent of the State Government; challenges to the CBI investigation consent were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Whether there was sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioner. Whether the order framing charges is a speaking order reflecting due application of mind. Whether the withdrawal of the discharge application dispensed with the court's duty under Section 228 CrPC. Whether non-furnishing of some documents vitiated the framing of charges. Whether the statement of an accused recorded under Section 164 CrPC before being allowed to turn approver could be considered. Whether sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959, was required for the petitioner. Whether the petition was an abuse of the process of the court.

Petitioner argued that there was absolutely no material to connect him to the offences and the order framing charges lacked reasons. Petitioner contended that withdrawal of the discharge application did not mean charges could be mechanically framed; the court had to independently apply its mind. Petitioner claimed that due to non-furnishing of certain documents, his right to be heard at the stage of framing charges was rendered illusory. Petitioner objected that the trial court improperly relied on the statement of Accused No.17 recorded under Section 164 CrPC before he was permitted to become an approver. Petitioner pointed out that no sanction had been obtained under Section 39 of the Arms Act for his prosecution, unlike for some co-accused. Respondent argued that the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence with numerous witnesses and documents, providing a prima facie case. Respondent submitted that the order framing charges reflected due application of mind and that at the stage of Sections 227/228 CrPC, only a cursory consideration is required, not a mini trial. Respondent rebutted that the charge sheet and documents were duly received by the petitioner's counsel, as endorsed on the court record. Respondent contended that the approver's statement was only one piece of evidence and there was abundant other material implicating the petitioner. Respondent cited a Coordinate Bench decision holding that the charged offences under the Arms Act do not require sanction. Respondent further argued that the petitioner had made all out efforts to stifle the prosecution and his conduct amounted to abuse of process, the petition being an after-thought.

At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court is only required to consider whether there is a prima facie case; the order need not be an elaborately reasoned one. Where the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence, the court can take into account the conduct of the accused both before and after the incident to ascertain involvement. The withdrawal of a discharge application does not automatically lead to framing of charges, but the court must apply its mind to the material on record. Challenges to the framing of charges at an interlocutory stage should not be lightly entertained unless there is a gross failure of justice or abuse of process.

this Court declines indulgence in the matter The case of prosecution against the petitioner is one of circumstantial evidence that galores on record. the involvement of the accused and his role in the commission of crime can be ascertained from his conduct anterior to the commission of crime for which he is charged and posterior thereof

An FIR was registered on 15.06.2016 at Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, for murder and related offences. The State Police investigated and filed a charge sheet (C.C.No.964/2016). The case was committed to Sessions Court (S.C.No.50/2017), charges were framed against six accused, and trial commenced with 63 prosecution witnesses examined. The prosecution closed its evidence, and the matter was at the stage of defence evidence. Meanwhile, the State Government consented to CBI investigation, and the CBI re-registered the case (RC-17(S)/2019) on 24.09.2019. The consent order was challenged but upheld by the High Court (2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15910) and Supreme Court (SLP (Crl.) No.9649/2021 dismissed). The CBI filed additional charge sheets, leading to the registration of Spl.C.C.No.565/2021. The petitioner had filed a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC but later withdrew it. The trial court framed charges on 06.12.2023, which the petitioner challenged in the present writ petition.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 302, 201, 149
• Arms Act, 1959: 25, 3, 5, 8, 29, 39
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 173(2), 173(5), 173(8), 207, 227, 228, 313, 164, 306, 482
• Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: 6
• Constitution of India: 226