Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal revision application filed by the applicant challenging the order of the Special Judge refusing to discharge him from certain offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant contended that despite the framing of charges, the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and hear the matter on merits. The respondent, the State of Maharashtra, raised a preliminary objection stating that the application had become infructuous due to the ongoing trial and examination of witnesses. The court noted that the impugned order was passed on 27.01.2025, and the revision application was affirmed on 30.04.2025, with a delay condoned on 17.09.2025. The trial court had framed charges under various sections of the IPC and other laws, and the trial was proceeding expeditiously as directed by the Supreme Court. The court analyzed the relevant judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in DRI v. Raj Kumar Arora, which established that once charges are framed, the accused cannot seek discharge. The court emphasized the importance of timely administration of justice and the limited scope of revision under Section 397, which does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision application, affirming the trial court's decision not to discharge the applicant from the IPC offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction of High Court - Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC - High Court can still hear the matter on merits despite charges being framed - The right to seek discharge is a valuable right that cannot be taken away by the framing of charges. The court emphasized the need for careful and judicious exercise of discretion in the interest of timely administration of justice (Paras 3, 14). B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charges - Once charges are framed, the accused cannot seek discharge under Section 216 CrPC - The Supreme Court clarified that post-framing of charges, the accused must either be convicted or acquitted, and cannot seek discharge. The court reiterated that the scope of revision under Section 397 is limited and does not allow for re-appreciation of evidence (Paras 6, 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code after charges have been framed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, affirming the trial court's decision not to discharge the applicant from IPC offences, stating that the jurisdiction under Section 397 is limited and cannot allow for re-appreciation of evidence post-framing of charges.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC
- Discharge application
- Framing of charges
- Timely administration of justice
