Revisional jurisdiction is limited, and dismissal of discharge petitions under Cr.P.C. 227 does not allow for reapplication once charges are framed.

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

-----------------------------------------------

Crl.R.P No.365 of 2020 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2026.

O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused and he is challenging Annexure A6 charge framed against him in S.C.No.161 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 336 , 337 and 338 IPC by the trial court on 21.11.2019.

2. Heard Smt. Reshma E., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to provide the reasons for his findings that offences punishable underSections 336, 337 and 338 will stand against the petitioner and that the trial court ought to have found that the said offences will not stand against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [ 1977 KHC 221 ] andSanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradeshand Another [2021 KHC 6274] and argued that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are, therefore, not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner herein previously filed Annexure A2 petition seeking discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C and the same was dismissed as per Annexure A3 order dated 14.08.2019 and subsequently, the petitioner again filed Annexure A4 discharge petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and the same was also dismissed as per Annexure A5 order dated 21.11.2019 and therefore, in the absence of any challenge regarding Annexures A3 and A5 orders dismissing the discharge petitions, the present petition filed against Annexure A6 charge framed by the trial court is not at all maintainable.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein previously filed two petitions under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the same were dismissed by the trial court. In Ravi v. Sate of Tamil Nadu, 2024 KLT OnLine 2162 (SC), the Hon’ble the Supreme Court held thus in paragraphs 10 and 11.

“10. Thus, the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that sub-section 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. 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.

11. It is trite to say that Section 216 is an enabling provision which enables the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, and if any alternation or addition to a charge is made, the court has to follow the procedure as contained therein. Section 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking dis