Revisional Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Chargesheet Material For Discharge Once Charges Are Framed And Trial Progresses: Bombay High Court

"This limited scope of revision under section 397 of CrPC is now further narrowed down, in view of mandate in paragraph 154 of DRI Vs. Raj Kumar Arora (supra) where it is clearly held that post framing of charges, accused can not be discharged." Bombay High Court held on October 30, 2026, that an accused cannot insist on a detailed re-appreciation of chargesheet material under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to challenge a refusal of discharge once charges have been framed and trial proceedings have substantially advanced. Justice M.M. Sathaye observed that the statutory scope of criminal revision against an order rejecting discharge under Section 227 CrPC narrows down drastically once the trial commences.

The applicant-accused challenged an order dated January 27, 2025, passed by the Special Judge under the MCOC Act, which discharged him from organized crime offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, but rejected his discharge plea for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Section 307. During the pendency of the revision application before the High Court, the trial court framed charges against the accused, and nine prosecution witnesses were examined pursuant to Supreme Court directions expediting the trial.

Whether a revision application under Section 397 CrPC challenging an order refusing discharge under Section 227 CrPC can be sustained on merits after charges have already been framed and trial has progressed?

Whether an accused standing in a trial where charges have been framed can seek discharge or re-appreciation of chargesheet material in revisional jurisdiction in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in DRI v. Raj Kumar Arora?

Revisional scope under Section 397 CrPC narrows significantly after framing of charges

The High Court considered the preliminary objection raised by the prosecution that the revision application had become infructuous following the Supreme Court's verdict in The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora. The Court observed that while Issue No. 3 in the said judgment discussed alteration of charges under Section 216 CrPC, the apex court laid down an unequivocal legal mandate barring post-charge discharge.

Justice Sathaye cited the Supreme Court’s definitive conclusion in Raj Kumar Arora, emphasizing that once charges are framed by the trial court under Section 228 CrPC, an accused cannot thereafter seek discharge through either Section 227 or Section 216 CrPC. The apex court had unequivocally clarified that at such a stage of trial, the accused must necessarily face trial and either be convicted or acquitted without shortcuts.

Right to seek discharge is qualified by timely administration of criminal justice

Addressing the applicant’s reliance on the three-judge bench decision in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court acknowledged that seeking discharge remains a valuable right of the accused. However, the High Court underlined that the Supreme Court had itself incorporated a vital caveat mandating that revisional discretion must be exercised circumspectly.

The bench noted that whenever revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is invoked against an order refusing discharge and charges are subsequently framed, the High Court is bound to remain circumspect. The Court emphasized that aspects touching effective and timely administration of criminal justice assume paramount importance, specifically the stage of trial, the number of witnesses examined, the judicial time invested by the trial court, and the nature of the alleged offences.

High Court cannot embark upon a mini-trial under Section 397 CrPC

The Court referred to State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao to reiterate that a revisional court cannot sit as an appellate forum to appreciate evidence or locate inconsistencies in witness statements at the stage of framing charges. The bench stressed that this circumscribed jurisdiction is restricted even further when charges have been framed and trial has commenced.

Consequently, the Court ruled that accused persons facing trials where charges have been framed and witnesses examined cannot demand an exhaustive consideration of chargesheet material. Examining the underlying incident involving an armed assault over a plot dispute with swords, iron rods, and call detail records linking the accused, the Court held that it could not embark upon a mini-trial.

The Bombay High Court held that the Special Court's order refusing to discharge the applicant from offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code did not warrant any interference and dismissed the Criminal Revision Application.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2026