Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal wherein the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., took note of the respondent’s attempt to derail criminal proceedings against him by filing frivolous applications and stated that Section 216 of CrPC does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge under Section 227, CrPC has already been dismissed. The Court further reiterated that Section 216, CrPC is an enabling provision which enables the Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced; and if any alternation or addition to a charge is made, the Court must follow the procedure as contained in the provision.
The Court expressed concern that frivolous applications were being filed in the Trial Courts sometimes in ignorance of law and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings. “Once such applications though untenable are filed, the trial courts have no alternative but to decide them, and then again such orders would be challenged before the higher courts, and the whole criminal trial would get derailed. Suffice it to say that such practice is highly deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts”.
Background and Legal Trajectory:
In 2009, a FIR was registered against Respondent-2 at the instance of the appellant for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860. The FIR alleged that Respondent-2 along with others, prevented the appellant and his group from filing the nomination at AIADMK Party Office at Dharmapuri and started threatening the appellant. The altercation between the parties led to assaults, serious injuries and death of one person during treatment.
The Investigating Officer, after collecting sufficient evidence, submitted the chargesheet implicating 31 accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who then committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.
Respondent- 2 filed an application before the Sessions Court seeking his discharge from the case under Section 227 of CrPC, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The dismissal was challenged by Respondent 2 before the Madras High Court by filing a Revision Application. The said Revision Application was dismissed by the High Court specifically holding that there were sufficient incriminating materials available against the Respondent -2 to frame the charges and that the Sessions Court had rightly dismissed the Respondent’s application. Thereafter the Sessions Court framed charges against all the accused persons and Respondent- 2 was charged for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149, 147, 148 and 324 of IPC.
However, Respondent- 2 along with other accused persons again filed a vexatious application under Section 216 of CrPC seeking alteration of the charge on the ground that Respondent- 2 and others were not present at the scene of offence committed in 2009. The said application was dismissed by the Sessions Court specifically observing that there were statements of eyewitnesses available on record to show Respondent 2’s presence at the scene of occurrence. It was also observed that the charge was framed against all the accused based on material on record available with the Court, and that as per the settled legal position the charge could be altered at any stage of the proceedings.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated dismissal, Respondent- 2 once again approached the Madras High Court via another Revisional Application under S. 397, CrPC, wherein the High Court passed the impugned setting aside the Sessions Court’s order framing the charges against Respondent-2 and directed further investigation Section 173(8) of CrPC.
Court’s Assessment:
Observing that the instant appeal arises out from an ‘extremely unusual and untenable Judgment and Order’ passed by Madras High Court, the Bench pointed out that Respondent-2 after having failed to get himself discharged from the Sessions Court as well as from the High Court in the first round of litigation, filed another vexatious application before the Sessions Court under Section 216 of CrPC, or modification of the charge after charges were already framed by the Sessions Court.
The Court further observed that the High Court in its unusual, impugned order, discharged the Respondent- 2 from the charges levelled against him, though his earlier application seeking discharge was already dismissed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court and that position had attained finality.
The Court strictly pointed out that Madras High Court failed to realise that the order challenged before it, was the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application of the Respondent- 2 seeking modification of the charge framed against him under Section
The Court further stated that an order dismissing application seeking modification of charge would be an interlocutory order and in view of the express bar contained in Section 397(2), CrPC, the Revision Application itself was not maintainable.
The Court further emphasised that the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397, CrPC is extremely limited. Even powers under S. 397(1) should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there was non-compliance of provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the Trial Court was based on no evidence, or material evidence was ignored, or judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. “Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for modification of the charge under Section 216, CrPC, which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order”.
Reiterating that Section 216 is an enabling provision for Courts alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced and that procedure prescribed in the provisions must be followed, the Court stated that S. 216 does not give right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking discharge, especially when application under S. 227, CrPC had already been dismissed.
Without mincing any words, the Court stated that Respondent- 2 had miserably failed to get himself discharged from the case in the first round of litigation, when he had filed the application under Section 227 CrPC; still however, he filed another vexatious application seeking modification of charge under Section 216 of CrPC to derail the criminal proceedings.
Furthermore, the Court observed that Madras High Court, on an “absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard of the settled legal position” allowed the Revision Application filed by the Respondent- 2, which was legally untenable in the first place and set aside the charge framed by the Sessions Court.
Therefore, allowing the appeal, the Court concluded that the impugned order being ex facie illegal, untenable and dehors the material on record, deserves to be set aside. The Court further restored the Sessions Court’s order framing the charges. Noting that Respondent- 2 sufficiently derailed the proceedings against himself, thereby misusing the process of law; the Court directed that cost of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by Respondent- 2 to the Appellant within two weeks.
The Sessions Court was also directed to proceed further with the trial against all the accused persons including the Respondent- 2 in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
