Orders Framing Charge Or Refusing Discharge Are Neither Interlocutory Order Nor Final Order: Reiterates Supreme Court

• Published date: 08 June 2021
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime, Anti-Corruption & Fraud, Crime
• Law Firm: RPV Legal
• Author: Mr Mallikarjun Khare

Introduction:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently on 07/05/2021 in Sanjay Kumar Rai v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another¹ reiterated that orders framing charge or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC").

Section 397(2) of CrPC bars the power of the Courts to exercise revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The term interlocutory order has not been defined in the CrPC. The term interlocutory order has been used in a very restrictive sense and not in any broad or artistic sense.² It may be defined as orders which are purely interim or temporary which do not decide or touch upon the important rights or the liabilities of the parties.

Facts:

A criminal appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad wherein the criminal revision against the order refusing to discharge the appellant has been dismissed.

Charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant/accused for offences under Section 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") based on the statement of the complainant and statements of two witnesses on affidavit. However, the version of the appellant was never taken on record to consider his side of the story. The Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 08/11/2012.

The appellant filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of CrPC on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated; the allegations of telephonic threats do not constitute an offence under Section 504 and 506 of the IPC and that the investigation was not proper. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate ('CJM') rejected the application of the appellant inter alia on the ground that there was sufficient evidence on record to frame charge against the accused amongst others.

The appellant being aggrieved by the rejection order filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court seeking reversal of CJM's Order. The High Court relying on the decision of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited versus Central Bureau of Investigation³ observed that order of discharge can be interfered only in the rarest of rare cases only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction. The High Court held that since there was no patent error of jurisdiction, the revision petition was dismissed.

Decision

The...