The court emphasized the unfettered power of the court to frame charges based on the materials produced before it, highlighting the importance of framing a proper charge in a criminal trial.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner has combined various reliefs, of which the relevant one is to set aside Annexure A15 order dated 23.03.2022 framing charge against him for the offences punishable under sections 341 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Annexure A20 and Annexure A21 orders dated 27.11.2023 of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, are also challenged. By virtue of those two orders, the Court has dismissed petitioner’s application for referring questions to the High Court under section 395 Cr.P.C. and also rejected petitioner’s challenge against the order framing charge as well as the challenge against the orders in two petitions filed as C.M.P. Nos. 602/2022 and 603/2022.

2. The dispute arises out of an incident that occurred on 28.11.2011 at the Museum Junction at Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner is alleged to have blocked a KSRTC stage carriage on the main road at around 7:50 PM using his car and attacked the driver of the stage carriage. A final report was filed alleging offences punishable under sections 341, 353 and 323 of IPC.

3. The case has a history which is worth mentioning to indicate how a trial has been prolonged for a decade and more. Initially, on 07.02.2012, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Thiruvananthapuram, took cognizance of the offences mentioned in the final report, i.e. for those under sections 341, 353 and 323 of IPC and issued process to the accused. After the accused appeared, the learned Magistrate on 27.08.2014 framed charges for the offences under sections 341 and 332 of IPC and the trial commenced. Later, consequent to examination of the defence witnesses, the learned Magistrate realized that it was not a case triable by him.

4. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate withdrew the case to itself on 17.01.2017. Later, the accused filed C.M.P. No. 846/2017, seeking to discharge him. The said petition was dismissed, against which a revision was preferred before the Sessions Court, and by order dated 19.06.2017, the Sessions Court remanded the matter. While the question of discharge was pending consideration before the Chief Judicial Magistrate after remand from the Sessions Court, petitioner filed a revision petition as Crl. R.P. No. 36 of 2018 challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate withdrawing the case from the Magistrate’s Court. The said revision petition was also dismissed.

5. In the meantime, the accused filed Crl. M.C. No. 838 of 2019 to quash the proceedings, which ended in dismissal, against which he approached the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4344/2019, which also ended in dismissal. Petitioner then filed a review petition before the Supreme Court as R.P. No. 417/2019, which was also dismissed. After all the above proceedings, petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 2680/2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, challenging his competence to try the offence. The said petition was also dismissed by order dated 28.09.2019. The petitioner preferred another revision before the Sessions Court, and by order dated 18.01.2020, the said revision was dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/-. Though petitioner’s challenge against the above-noted order was dismissed in W.P. (C) No. 194 of 2022, the cost imposed by the Sessions Court was interfered with.

6. Till this period, C.M.P. No. 846/2017 seeking discharge could not be considered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate after remand from the Sessions Court. Thereafter, on 01.02.2022, the petition for discharge was dismissed and the charge was framed for the offences under sections 341 and 332 of IPC. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the offences on 23.02.2022. Soon thereafter, petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 602/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to review the order framing charge. Petitioner also filed C.M.P. No. 603/2022 to refer three questions of law to the High Court under section 395 Cr.P.C. Both petitions were dismissed by order dated 13.04.2022. Challenging the order framing the charge and th