In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not allow the filing of fresh discharge applications once charges have been framed by a court. The Court further emphasized that such practices should be dealt with sternly to prevent the misuse of judicial processes and delays in the criminal justice system.
The judgment came in the case of K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., where the appellant, K. Ravi, challenged the decision of the Madras High Court that had set aside the framing of charges against the accused, Baskar, the second respondent in the case. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, restores the order of the Sessions Court framing charges and imposes a cost of INR 50,000 on the second respondent for filing frivolous applications.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around an incident on November 24, 2009, at the AIADMK Party Office in Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu. An FIR (Crime No. 2074/2009) was registered against nine accused, including Baskar, son of Mathikonpalayam Pachiyappan, for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant, ADMK Ravi, alleged that the accused, led by S.R. Vetrivel, AIADMK Town Secretary, and others, had attacked him and his group to prevent them from filing a nomination. The attack led to the death of the complainant’s brother, Veeramani, during treatment at Dharmapuri government hospital.
The Investigating Officer, after collecting substantial evidence, filed a chargesheet against 31 accused, leading to the case being committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
Legal Issues Involved
The case presented several legal issues, primarily concerning the filing of repeated and vexatious applications to delay criminal proceedings. The second respondent, Baskar, had initially filed an application under Section 227 of the CrPC before the Sessions Court, seeking his discharge from the case, which was dismissed on July 1, 2016. The Madras High Court subsequently upheld this dismissal in a revision application (Crl.R.C. No. 953 of 2016) on August 5, 2016, finding sufficient evidence against Baskar to frame charges.
Despite the dismissal, Baskar filed another application under Section 216 of the CrPC before the Sessions Court, seeking the alteration of the charges on the grounds that he was not present at the scene of the offence. This application was also dismissed by the Sessions Court on October 18, 2016, citing the presence of eyewitness statements and other material evidence.
Baskar then moved the High Court again, filing a Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.R.C. No. 1268 of 2016), which resulted in the High Court setting aside the charges framed by the Sessions Court and directing further investigation. This unusual order prompted the present appeal by K. Ravi before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court sharply criticized the Madras High Court for its “unusual and untenable” order discharging the accused despite the clear prohibition under Section 397(2) of the CrPC, which bars revision petitions against interlocutory orders. The bench highlighted the settled legal position that once charges are framed, a fresh application for discharge under Section 216 is impermissible, especially when a previous discharge application has been dismissed.
Quoting the Court’s observation, Justice Bela M. Trivedi stated:
“Section 216 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 has already been dismissed. Unfortunately, such applications are being filed in the trial courts sometimes in ignorance of law and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings.”
The Court further emphasized the need for lower courts to deal firmly with such practices:
“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.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the order of the Sessions Court framing the charges, and imposed a cost of INR 50,000 on the second respondent to be paid to the appellant within two weeks. The Court also directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial against all accused, warning that non-cooperation by any accused would result in the cancellation of their bail.
