top of page
Question Bank
Question
Can FIR be quashed after filing of chargesheet?
Solution
Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973; Section 482 -Whether quashing of the FIR can be refused for no other reason than that the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet? High Court under Section 482, Cr. PC. retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached, inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read together, even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal, does not disclose commission of any offence or that continuation of proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse of the process of law as well as of the Court given the peculiar circumstances of each particular case- Referred to Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011) 6 SCC 479 , Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Home Department (2019) 11 SCC 706 and Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC Online SC 108. (Para 7-8) – Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat CrA 1884/2013 – S 482 CrPC
Question
Is an order dismissing an application seeking modification of charge ‘interlocutory order’? Is a revision petition maintainable?
Solution
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 216,397– The order dismissing application seeking modification of charge would be an interlocutory order and in view of the express bar contained in sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Revision Application itself is not maintainable. (Para 8)- K Ravi vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 642
Question
Does Section 216 CrPC give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed?
Solution
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 216,227- Section 216 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 alteration or addition to a charge is made, the court has to follow the procedure as contained therein. 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. 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- Such practice is highly deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts. (Para 11)- K Ravi vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 642
Question
What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397?
Solution
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397-The 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 Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order – scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that subsection 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. (Para 10) – K Ravi vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 642
Question
What is the scope of discharge under Section 227 CrPC?
Solution
Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973; Section 227– The expression “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly shows that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution. The Judge must exercise the judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The principles governing the scope of Section 227, Cr.P.C. – Referred to Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4. (Para 20.2)- Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited vs Central Bureau Of Investigation 2024 INSC 623
bottom of page