Court Upholds Legal Process for Alteration or Discharge of Charges, Citing Remedies Available During Trial
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal application filed by Pawan Kumar Singh and others seeking to quash the summoning order and subsequent proceedings in a criminal case. The application was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) against charges framed under Sections 354A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case, registered at Police Station Kotwali Chunar, Mirzapur, involved allegations of molestation and making indecent comments. Despite the victim not corroborating these allegations in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the police proceeded with a charge-sheet against the applicants.
Presiding over the case, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri emphasized that the court could not grant relief at this preliminary stage. The court maintained that the issues concerning the sufficiency of evidence and the framing or altering of charges should be addressed at the appropriate stages of trial. Remedies for discharge or alteration of charges are available to the accused under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The court referred to the statutory provisions allowing for alteration or addition of charges under Sections 216, 218, and 221 Cr.P.C., which correspond to Sections 239, 241, and 244 of the BNSS. Additionally, it was noted that the accused could seek discharge under Sections 227 or 239 Cr.P.C. (or corresponding sections of BNSS) depending on the sufficiency of material evidence.
The judgment also highlighted that the evidence gathered during investigation is not considered formal evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The court reiterated that the accused has the opportunity to contest the charges during the trial proceedings, where they can cross-examine prosecution witnesses and present their defense.
The court's decision aligns with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, emphasizing that the trial court, rather than the magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance, is the appropriate forum for determining the framing and alteration of charges.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural framework set by law for addressing issues related to charge framing and evidence sufficiency, thereby ensuring a fair trial process.
Bottom Line:
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning order and further proceedings in a criminal case dismissed, as remedies are available to the accused at appropriate stages for discharge or altering charges.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 482, 216, 218, 227, 239, 245 Cr.P.C.; Sections 239, 241, 244, 250, 262, 268 BNSS; Sections 354A, 504, 506 IPC
Pawan Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2823917
