Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant against the revision petitioner/accused for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Trial Court, i.e., the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Udupi in CC No.1903/2024, proceeded to frame charges without recording the evidence of the complainant before charge. The revision petitioner challenged this order by filing a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (also filed under Section 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)). The petitioner argued that the Trial Court ought to have recorded the evidence of the complainant before framing charges, as mandated by Section 200 of CrPC. The respondent/complainant opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that in a private complaint case, it is mandatory for the Trial Court to record the evidence of the complainant before proceeding to frame charges. The Court relied on the judgment in Rajanna v. Chayapathi, ILR 1988 KAR 198, which held that if the complainant does not choose to file a list of witnesses, the court must still record the complainant's evidence. The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 closing the stage of evidence before charge and directed the Trial Court to record the evidence of the complainant before proceeding further. The revision petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Private Complaint - Pre-charge Evidence - Section 200 CrPC, Section 438 BNSS - The Trial Court must record the evidence of the complainant before framing charges in a private complaint case; failure to do so vitiates the proceedings and requires remand for compliance. (Paras 2-4)
B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Maintainability - Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC - A revision petition lies against an order closing the stage of evidence before charge and proceeding to frame charge without recording pre-charge evidence, as it amounts to an illegality. (Para 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court can proceed to frame charges in a private complaint case without recording the evidence of the complainant before charge as required under Section 200 of CrPC.
Final Decision
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court in CC No.1903/2024 closing the stage of evidence before charge is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to record the evidence of the complainant before proceeding further in the matter.
Law Points
- Pre-charge evidence mandatory in private complaint cases
- Section 200 CrPC
- Section 438 BNSS
- Revision against order framing charge without evidence
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (06) 76
Sri. H. Manjunath (for petitioner), Smt. Haleema Ameen (for respondent)
Mr. H. Naseer @ Mohammed Naseer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Trial Court closing the stage of evidence before charge and proceeding to frame charge without recording pre-charge evidence in a private complaint case.
Remedy Sought
The revision petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 closing the stage of evidence before charge and to discharge the accused for offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 IPC.
Filing Reason
The Trial Court proceeded to frame charges without recording the evidence of the complainant before charge, which is mandatory under Section 200 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court passed an order on 16.07.2025 closing the stage of evidence before charge and proceeded to frame charge in CC No.1903/2024.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court can frame charges in a private complaint case without recording the evidence of the complainant before charge as required under Section 200 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The revision petitioner argued that the Trial Court ought to have recorded the evidence of the complainant before framing charges, and failure to do so requires interference.
The respondent/complainant opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
In a private complaint case, it is mandatory for the Trial Court to record the evidence of the complainant before proceeding to frame charges under Section 200 CrPC. Failure to do so vitiates the proceedings and the order framing charge without such evidence is liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in proceeding to frame the charge without recording the evidence before charge.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the case is arising out of a private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant and the Trial Court ought to have recorded the evidence and proceeded to frame the charge and the same is not done and hence it requires interference of this Court.
The learned counsel in support of his arguments relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of RAJANNA v. CHAYAPATHI reported in ILR 1988 KAR 198, wherein this Court held that if the complainant does not choose to file a list of witnesses, the court must still record the complainant's evidence.
Procedural History
The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Udupi, which was registered as CC No.1903/2024 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 IPC. The Trial Court passed an order on 16.07.2025 closing the stage of evidence before charge and proceeded to frame charge. The revision petitioner challenged this order by filing CRL.RP No.1562/2025 before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 200, Section 397, Section 401
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 438, Section 442
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 406, Section 420, Section 504, Section 506
