Courts Must Inquire Into Accused's Mental Capacity To Stand Trial Even Without Application If Material Exists: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where material exists raising a prima facie doubt about an accused's mental capacity to stand trial, the trial court has a mandatory duty to conduct an inquiry even if no application has been filed in that regard. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 306]

Emphasizing the right to have a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed,

"This is the essential reason that provisions have been engrafted in the Code, in the Sanhita and in the Mental Healthcare Act, which lay down that an enquiry or trial of a person who is incapable of defending himself due to the disability must be postponed till he can understand the proceedings. Denial of such protection will deny his fundamental human right to have a fair trial, as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is trite that there is not even a need for an application under the relevant Chapter to try the fact of unsoundness or intellectual disability; rather, it is the mandatory duty of the Court". 

The case arose from a private complaint filed in January 2010 by a private respondent claiming that five people, including the petitioner, had committed criminal breach of trust (Section 406), cheating (Section 420), forgery (Section 467), forgery for the purpose of cheating (Section 468) and using a forged document as genuine (Section 471) of IPC. The allegations were substantially the same as those made in an earlier company petition. 

Per the petitioner, he had developed schizophrenia in 2012. Subsequently, in company proceedings, the High Court ordered the winding up of the company on February 2, 2015 and appointed the Official Liquidator. 

On August 17, 2016, the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner and another accused. Later, on December 22, 2017, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court principally because of his mental illness. 

In the company proceedings, the petitioner's nephew filed an application seeking permission to represent him as his 'next friend' owing to his mental illness. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear personally before the High Court. 

On October 16, 2019, the petitioner moved an application under Section 328 of CrPC before the Magistrate, asserting that he was of unsound mind and incapable of defending himself. The petitioner later contended before the Trial Court that the Magistrate had wrongly committed the case for trial without first deciding this application and requested that the matter be remanded to the Magistrate for inquiry under Section 328 CrPC. 

Additional Sessions Judge, through an order of July 23, 2025, rejected the application on the ground that no medical records were placed after 2017 and that the medical documents did not establish that the petitioner was incapable of understanding the nature of his acts. The court held that the proceedings themselves showed that the petitioner understood both the allegations and the criminal process and was capable of defending himself. 

Following the dismissal of the application, the Sessions Court framed charges against the petitioner on August 23, 2025, under the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to quash the order rejecting his petition regarding mental incapacity and the subsequent order framing charges.

The court examined the statutory scheme from Section 328 to 331 CrPC, which provides the procedure to be followed when the court deals with an accused person of unsound mind. 

The court clarified that when the Magistrate finds, in the committal proceedings, material to doubt the capacity of the accused to stand trial, then he is "bound to proceed under Section 328". If the Magistrate discovers that the accused is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate shall direct examination of the accused by the Civil Surgeon or as directed by the State. Upon findings of the medical examination, the Magistrate shall postpone the proceedings and proceed as per Section 331 of CrPC. 

Further, the court examined the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which deals with procedures which ought to be followed in the judicial process involving a person with mental illness. Under Section 105 of the Act, if any proof of mental illness is provided and challenged by the other party, the court shall refer the same for further scrutiny to the Board. The Board submits its opinion, which forms the basis of whether the trial could proceed. 

The bench highlighted, "The fundamental objective of the scheme of the relevant statutes is to provide a fair and impartial trial to the accused. It has the demonstrable object that the accused should not be prejudiced. A fair trial is to be conducted in such a manner that it would ostracize injustice, prejudice etc. In a criminal trial, the accused, who is of unsound mind or is faced with intellectual disability in such a manner that he is not able to comprehend the gravity of the charges levelled against him, would not be in a position to explain the criminal acts alleged against him". 

The court concluded that the material placed on record was sufficient to raise prima facie doubt regarding the petitioner's capacity to stand trial. Accordingly, the Trial Court ought to have conducted the mandatory inquiry before proceeding further.

The bench therefore set aside the impugned order, directed the Sessions Court to conduct the inquiry in accordance with law, and clarified that the order framing charges would remain subject to the outcome of that inquiry.

Case Title: Surendra Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-47191-2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 306

For Applicant: Advocate Manu Maheshwari 

For State: Government Advocate Viraj Godha

For Private Complainant: Advocate Rakesh Kumar Laad

Click here to read/download the Order