Supreme Court's Direction To Keep Sedition Charge In Abeyance Doesn't Bar Continuation Of Trial On Other IPC, UAPA Offences: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Supreme Court judgment in S.G. Vombatkere Vs Union of India [W.P.(Civil) 682/2021], which kept charges under Section 124A of the IPC in abeyance pending the case, does not confer blanket immunity from prosecution for other connected offences under the UAPA or the IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 302]

Observing that the framing of charges under multiple statutes cannot be stalled merely because one section is kept in abeyance, the bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed:

"The threshold to frame a charge is merely a grave suspicion that the accused has committed the offence. Applying the principles to the material on record, it cannot be said that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence whatsoever. The reliance placed on S.G. Vombatkere (Supra) does not grant a blanket immunity from prosecution for other connected offences under the UAPA or the IPC. The Trial Court remains bound by the Supreme Court's directive to keep the trial concerning Section 124A IPC in abeyance, but this does not vitiate the impugned order framing charges for the remaining offences". 

For context, the Supreme Court passed an interim order on May 11, 2022, in S.G. Vombatkere Vs Union of India stating, “All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with other sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused”.

A criminal revision was filed challenging the order of the Trial Court wherein he challenged the framing of charges against him for conspiracy to wage war (Section 121A IPC), concealing with intent to facilitate war (Section 123), sedition (Section 124A) of IPC along with Sections 13 and 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 

According to the facts, the police visited the residence of one Imram Khan, where they allegedly recovered certain incriminating booklets. The prosecution asserted that the booklets amounted to an attempt to wage war against the State. Therefore, an FIR was filed. Upon completion of investigation, a final report (challan) was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused. 

The Trial Court initially framed charges through an order of April 2, 2016, but this was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court with specific direction to consider the petitioner's objection regarding non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency, which prescribes that the Central Government is authorised to determine whether a scheduled offence is made out, which dictates whether the NIA or State Police should investigate. 

Relying on this Supreme Court case, the petitioner filed another application on November 10, 2022. The Trial Court, via order of September 2, 2024, rejected the discharge application, leading to this revision. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Trial Court erred in law and on the facts by rejecting the discharge application. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court ought to have first decided the application dated November 10, 2022, seeking compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in S.G. Vombatkere Vs Union of India. 

Thus, the petitioner argued that the Trial Court was not competent to adjudicate or frame charges under Section 124A of IPC. The petitioner argued that the charges under UAPA do not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 13 and 17. The petitioner argued that the mandatory sanction under Section 45(2) of UAPA read with the 2008 Rules was not validly obtained. 

The petitioner argued that one pistol and cartridges were alleged to have been recovered from the co-accused and that the seized booklets, which form the primary basis of the prosecution, are merely historical documents showing duties of Muslims in the pre-independent era. 

The counsel for the State argued that at the stage of framing of charges the Trial Court is only required to evaluate the material on record to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. The counsel argued that the seizure of incriminating booklets along with overall investigation constitutes sufficient prima facie material to frame charges and therefore the Trial Court order was proper. 

The court noted that the Trial Court was faced with a composite chargesheet involving severe offences under UAPA alongside Section 121A and 123 IPC. The bench noted that framing of charges under multiple statutes cannot be entirely stalled merely because one of the sections- Section 124A is kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court. The bench held that the Trial Court did not commit any patent illegality. 

Regarding the petitioner's objection regarding failure of compliance with Section 6 of the NIA Act, the court noted that the Trial Court duly considered this objection and recorded that the procedural compliance or non-compliance with the NIA Act requires adducing evidence, which is a plausible ground for judicial review at the charge-framing stage. 

The court noted that at the stage of Section 227 CrPC, the court is only required to scan the evidence to find out whether sufficient ground exists for proceeding against the accused. The complex details regarding whether the Central Government was appropriately informed within the prescribed timeline or whether the State police usurped jurisdiction are matters to be adjudicated during trial. 

The court further held, "The exact nature of the booklets, their intended audience, their potential to incite violence, and their connection to the larger conspiracy alleged by the prosecution, cannot be evaluated through a mini-trial in revisional proceedings. The prosecution's claim that the booklets contain material attempting to wage war requires a full-fledged trial for conclusive determination. The petitioner's defense that they are merely "historical documents" is a matter of defense evidence". 

Emphasizing that the trial court framing charges has to only examine whether there is a grave suspicion that the accused has committed the offence, the bench held that the criminal revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 

Case Title: Mazhar Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr.R. No.5582/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 302

For Petitioner: Advocate Ashutosh Surana

For State: Government Advocate Ambuj Patel 

Click here to read/download the Order