Order Dismissing Application Seeking Modification Of Charge Framed Is Interlocutory; Revision Application Not Maintainable: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing an Appeal arising out of as the Court said from an “extremely unusual and untenable Judgment” passed by the High Court of Judicature filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, where the High Court while allowing the said Revision Application set aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge framing charge and directed the further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

The bench of Justice Bella M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “The High Court utterly failed to realise that the order impugned against it was the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application of the Respondent No. 2 seeking modification of the charge framed against him under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., and the said order was an order of interlocutory in nature...It is pertinent to note that 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 was not maintainable.”

Brief Facts-

An FIR was registered against nine accused including Respondent No. 2, for murder and other charges following an attack on the complainant, ADMK Ravi and his brother Veeramani which resulted in Veeramani's death. The discharge plea filed by Respondent no. 2 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected by both the Sessions Court and the High Court as there was sufficient incriminating evidence available against the Respondent. The Respondent filed another application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter the charges claiming that he was not present at the crime scene but the Court again dismissed it on the basis of testimony of the witness. However, the High Court later discharged the Respondent and overlooked the fact that the matter had already attained finality.

The Court mentioned the decision in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another where the SC explained the scope of section 397 CrPC and observed, “If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.”

The Court said that 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.

While noting that fresh applications under Section 216 CrPC seeking discharge after the charge is framed are filed the Court said, “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. Suffice it to say that such practice is highly deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts.”

Accordingly, the Court said that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, untenable and dehors the material on record, the same deserves to be set aside.

Finally, the Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 642)

Click here to read/download Judgment