K. Ravi vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Held: s. 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 discharge u/s.227 has already been dismissed – Order dismissing application seeking modification of charge would be an interlocutory order and in view of the express bar contained in s.397(2), the revision application itself is not maintainable – Accused miserably failed to get himself discharged from the case in the first round of litigation, when he had filed the application u/s.227, still however he filed another vexatious application seeking modification of charge u/s.216 to derail the criminal proceedings – High Court, on an absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard of the settled legal position, allowed the revision application filed by the accused, though legally untenable, and set aside the charge framed by the Sessions Court against the accused – Said order being ex facie illegal, untenable and dehors the material on record, is set aside – Order passed by the Sessions Court is restored – Accused having sufficiently derailed the proceedings by filing frivolous and untenable applications one after the other misusing the process of law, cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the accused to the appellant – s.397 – Costs. [Paras 8, 10-13] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of charge – Accused filing a fresh application u/s.216 for alteration of charge, when his application seeking discharge u/s.227 has already been dismissed – Correctness: Held: s.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 – s.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 discharge u/s.227 has already been dismissed – 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 – Such practice is highly deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts – Judicial deprecation. [Para 11]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Calling for records to exercise powers of revision – Scope of s.397: Held: Scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction u/s.397 is extremely limited – Apart from the fact that s.397(2) prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of revision, even the powers u/s.397(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 – Court exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s.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 u/s.216 CrPC, which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order. [Para 10]