Accused Has No Statutory Right To File Protest Petition Against Charge Sheet: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a man's revision against the framing of charges for sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage and obscenity, has held that an accused has no statutory right to file a protest petition against a charge sheet and seek a mini-trial before charges are framed. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 261]Clarifying the scope of protest petitions, the bench of...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a man's revision against the framing of charges for sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage and obscenity, has held that an accused has no statutory right to file a protest petition against a charge sheet and seek a mini-trial before charges are framed. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 261]
Clarifying the scope of protest petitions, the bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai noted that the statutory scheme governing protest petitions primarily applies when a magistrate intends to accept a negative police report and drop proceedings. In such circumstances, it is mandatory to provide notice to the original informant and grant them an opportunity to be heard.
The bench held,
"when the investigating agency files a positive charge-sheet, the accused does not have a statutory right to file a "Protest Petition" demanding a mini-trial before the framing of charges. The remedy available to the accused at this stage is to argue for discharge based on the material on record".
A criminal revision was filed by the revisionist challenging the order of the Special Judge of Indore. The Trial Court in the impugned order had proceeded to frame charges against the revisionist. The revisionist sought to quash the said order, praying that his protest petition be heard and adjudicated upon.
Per the facts of the case, an FIR was registered, wherein the prosecutrix alleged that during her employment in Pithampur, she met the revisionist, who proposed marriage. Further, it was claimed that the revisionist, on assurance of marriage, forced a physical relationship with the prosecutrix and frequently called her to Indore for this purpose even after she relocated.
The prosecutrix further alleged that the revisionist eventually refused to marry her over a call on October 27, 2025, after which a complaint was lodged against him. After the investigation was concluded, the investigating agency filed a chargesheet on December 12, 2025, recording that prima facie evidence existed against the revisionist under Section 69 BNS, which deals with sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise of marriage.
The Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet on February 12, 2026. Thereafter, the revisionist filed a protest petition on May 5, 2026, challenging the charge sheet and the cognizance order. However, on the very next day, the Trial Court proceeded to frame charges under Sections 69 and 296 of the BNS. Aggrieved, the revisionist approached the High Court.
The counsel for the revisionist contended that the FIR was filed with malafide intent, and that false evidence was planted. The revisionist argued that his protest petition challenging the chargesheet and cognizance of the order was heard with orders reserved. However, it was claimed that rather than considering the objections in the petition, the Trial Court proceeded to frame charges, rendering the petition infructuous.
The counsel further argued that while the charge sheet only attributed allegations under Section 69 of the BNS, the Trial Court travelled beyond the police report and added a charge under Section 296 BNS (obscenity in public places) despite the alleged absence of material in this regard.
The counsel for the State, opposing the revision petition, contended that the Trial Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity. The State also claimed that the accused repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the victim using deceptive means and uttered obscene words in public places.
The court, emphasizing the revisional jurisdiction, observed that it is supervisory in nature and intended solely to correct patent defects in jurisdiction, error of law or procedural irregularities leading to gross miscarriage of justice.
It observed that the Trial Court had, in fact, recorded the arguments of the defence seeking discharge and the prosecution's rebuttal before concluding that sufficient material existed to frame charges under Sections 69 and 296 of the BNS.
On the revisionist's grievance regarding the protest petition, the High Court held that the arguments raised therein were, in essence, arguments seeking discharge. By finding prima facie material and proceeding to frame charges, the Trial Court had impliedly rejected the plea for discharge.
The Court further noted that the Trial Court had found prima facie material to conclude that the accused repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the victim by deceptive means and had allegedly uttered obscene words to her in a public place.
Therefore, holding that the non-disposal of the accused's protest petition through a separate order did not vitiate the proceedings or occasion any failure of justice, and finding no manifest error, jurisdictional defect or patent illegality in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision.
Case Title: Parth Kumar Tiwari v State of MP, Cr.R. No.2569/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 261
For Revisionist: Advocate Gauransh Vyas
For State: Government Advocate Ambuj Patel