Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 715

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
K. Ravi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2029 of 2018
Decided on : 29-08-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, Adv. Mr. Padmanabha Raja K.R., Adv. Nasim Anwar,Adv. Karthi P, Adv. S. Prakash, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Sarathraj B, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shakun Sharma, AOR Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Aarjoo Rawat, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Alteration of charge – Section 216 of Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision which enables court to alter or add to any charge at any time before Judgment is pronounced – Section 216 of Cr.P.C. does not give any right to accused to file fresh application seeking his discharge after charge is framed by court.
(2) Revision application cannot be filed against order passed by Trial Court dismissing application for modification of charge under Section 216, Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 216 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 239] – Alteration of charge – Section 216 is an enabling provision which enables court to alter or add to any charge at any time before Judgment is pronounced – If any alternation or addition to a charge is made, court has to follow procedure as contained therein – Section 216 does not give any right to accused to file fresh application seeking his discharge after charge is framed by court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge under Section 227 has already been dismissed – Such applications are being filed in trial courts sometimes in ignorance of law and sometimes deliberately to delay proceedings – Once such applications though untenable are filed, trial courts have no alternative but to decide them and then again such orders would be challenged before higher courts and whole criminal trial would get derailed – Such practice is highly deplorable and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by courts. (Para 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 438 and 442] – Revision application – Maintainability – Scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited – Apart from fact that sub-section (2) of Section 397 prohibits Court from exercising powers of Revision, even powers under sub-section (1) thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of provisions of law, or finding recorded by trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing charge – Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with order framing charge and could not have interfered with order passed by Trial Court dismissing application for modification of charge under Section 216, Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in category of an interlocutory order – Impugned order set aside and order passed by Sessions Court restored – Respondent no. 2 having sufficiently derailed proceedings by filing frivolous and untenable applications one after other misusing process of law, appeal allowed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by Respondent No. 2 to Appellant. (Para 8, 10 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal filed by Appellant – De facto Complainant arises out of Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2017 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision filed by Respondent No. 2 (originally Accused No. 2) under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., whereby High Court while allowing the said Revision Application set aside order dated 18.10.2016 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, framing charge in SC No.90 of 2015, and directed the further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
Sessions Court is directed to proceed further with trial against all accused including Respondent No. 2 (A-2) in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. All the parties are directed to cooperate the trial court to conclude trial as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that non-cooperation of any of accused in proceeding with trial shall entail cancellation of their bail.
Result : Appeal allowed with costs.

JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal filed by the Appellant – Defacto Complainant arises out of an extremely unusual and untenable Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision being Crl.R.C. No.1268 of 2016 filed by the Respondent No. 2 (originally Accused No. 2) under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., whereby the High Court while allowing the said Revision Application set aside the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri framing charge in SC No.90 of 2015, and directed the further investigation in Crime No.2074 of 2009 under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that an FIR being No. 2074 of 2009 came to be registered on 24.11.2009 at Police Station, Dharmapuri against 9 accused including the Respondent No. 2 (A-2) for the offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC. The said FIR was registered at the instance of the defacto complainant ADMK Ravi i.e., the present appellant. It was alleged inter alia in the said FIR that on 24.11.2009, the accused no. 1 S.R. Vetrivel, AIADMK Town Secretary along with his group prevented the complainant and his group from filing the nomination at AIADMK Party Office at Dharmapuri and also started threatening the complainant. The Accused Vetrivel thereafter shouted to bring weapons that were kept in a vehicle parked at the ground floor of the Dharmapuri District Party Office and the Accused Baskar son of Mathikonpalayam Pachiyappan (the Respondent No. 2 herein) brought the weapons kept in his Tata Safari White Car. Thereafter, the accused Vetrivel holding the knife ran towards the brother of the complainant i.e. Veeramani, who was running towards the complainant. Thereafter the accused Mathikonpalayam Annadurai caught hold of Veeramani and the accused Vetrivel stabbed Veeramani with knife on his chest and the accused Baskar (R-2) gave a blow on the head of Veeramani repeatedly and also beat the complainant with the iron pipes. The other accused also assaulted the complainant and others as narrated in the said FIR. Thereafter the complainant and his brother Veeramani were taken to the Dharmapuri government hospital by some people for treatment, where his brother Veeramani expired during the course of treatment.

4. The Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient evidence against all the accused submitted chargesheet implicating 31 accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

5. The Respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Sessions Court seeking his discharge from the case under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in the said Sessions case, which came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court vide the order dated 01.07.2016. The said order came to be challenged by the Respondent No. 2 before the High Court by filing a Revision Application being No. Crl.R.C. No. 953 of 2016. The said Revision Application came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the order dated 05.08.2016 specifically holding that there were sufficient incriminating materials available against the Respondent No.2 to frame the charge and that the Sessions Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

6. It appears that thereafter the Sessions Court framed charge against all the accused. The Respondent No. 2 (A-2) was charged for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149, 147, 148 and 324 of IPC. The Respondent No.2 along with other accused again filed a vexatious application being CRMP No. 1679/2016 in SC No. 90/2015, under Section 216 of Cr.P.C seeking alteration of the charge on the ground that the accused no. 2 and others were not present at the scene of offence on 24.11.2009. The said application came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court vide the order dated 18.10.2016 specifically observing that there were statements of eye witnesses avai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document