Don't Defer Framing Charges Unless Order Rejecting Discharge Plea Is Stayed: Allahabad High Court Directs UP Courts

A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that the trial courts are under a "statutory duty" to frame charges if a plea seeking discharge is rejected, unless a superior court has specifically stayed that order.

In its order passed earlier this month, the Court expressed concern over a recurring trend in which trial courts adjourn the framing of charges or defer the final hearing of cases solely on the pretext that a criminal revision or a writ petition is pending before the High Court, even in the absence of a stay order.

"It is a settled provision of law that merely filing of criminal revision or criminal appeal against any order, does not amount that the proceedings of the said Court, has been stayed”, the Court observed.

The Court added that in case the Sessions Court or Magistrate did not find any ground to discharge the accused, then unless the order rejecting the discharge application is challenged and stayed by the Higher Court, the Sessions Court and the Magistrate Courts are statutorily bound to frame charges against the accused under Section 228 CrPC and 240 CrPC respectively.

Case in brief

Briefly put, in the case before the HC, a revision petition was filed by one Avanish Chandra Srivastava, a retired government employee, challenging an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kaushambi.

The CJM concerned had rejected his application for discharge in a case involving serious offences under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 419, 420 (cheating), 467, 468, 471 (forgery), 111, and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC.

The FIR, lodged in 2004, alleged that Srivastava, upon his transfer, failed to hand over charge and relevant rural development papers to the concerned officer and prepared receipt/bill vouchers using forged signatures.

Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava, appearing for the revisionist, argued that the allegations were baseless. He contended that during the investigation, the missing files were eventually recovered from the almirah of a co-accused.

The accused relied heavily on a disciplinary inquiry report, filed nearly 17 years after the charge sheet was filed, in which Srivastava was exonerated. It was contended that since the departmental proceedings found him innocent, the criminal prosecution should not continue.

High Court's observations

Rejecting the contentions of the revisionist, the single judge clarified that at the stage of deciding a discharge application, the Magistrate is required to consider only the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 CrPC.

"The documents or the defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration while passing an order on discharge application," the Court noted.

The Bench added that at the stage of framing charges, it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider, in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance, whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not.

It stressed that a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charges and in this case, since the departmental inquiry report was generated long after the filing of the charge sheet, the Court held it could not be considered at this preliminary stage.

Referring to Sections 228 and 240 of the CrPC, the Court observed that if a Sessions Court or Magistrate does not find grounds to discharge the accused, they are statutorily bound to frame charges.

The HC noted that, in this case, despite the CJM's rejection of the discharge application on February 7, 2024, no charges had been framed against the accused to date.

The bench noted that it has come across a number of criminal revisions in which the Trial Courts, while dismissing the application filed by the accused seeking discharge, fix the case for framing of charges after about one month.

The Court noted that in some other cases, the Trial Courts are not framing charges on the pretext that criminal revisions are pending before the High Court.

Dismissing the revision petition on the ground that a prima facie case was made out against the accused, the High Court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to circulate the judgment among all District Courts.

The Court instructed District Judges to direct all the Judicial Officers that "unless the order rejecting the discharge application is challenged and stayed by the High Court, the Trial Courts are under a statutory duty to frame charges against the accused".

The Court clarified that the mere filing of an appeal, revision, or writ petition is not a valid or justifiable ground to stay the proceedings of a case.