Section 216 CrPC Does Not Authorize Deletion of Charges—Only Permits Alteration or Addition: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Trial Court’s Power

Supreme Court Rebukes Trial Courts for Discharging Accused Post Framing of Charges Under Garb of Section 216 CrPC; Holds Deletion of Charges Impermissible. In a significant interpretation of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Supreme Court of India on 17 April 2025, in Union of India v. Ashu Kumar & Ors., held that trial courts have no authority to delete charges or discharge accused persons after charges have already been framed under Section 228 CrPC, under the pretext of altering charges under Section 216 CrPC. The Court made it clear that Section 216 permits only the addition or alteration of charges—not their deletion or substitution with charges under a different statute altogether.

“Section 216 CrPC provides the Court with the power to do two things—One, alter a charge and two, add to a charge. Nowhere does the provision expressly or by necessary implication lead to an inference that a charge could be deleted altogether.”

Trial Courts Cannot Discharge Accused Post-Charge Framing—Supreme Court Declares Such Practice a Misuse of Section 216

In both criminal appeals before the Court, the trial courts had discharged the accused from charges under the NDPS Act, and redirected the cases to magistrates for proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act), citing that NDPS charges were not made out. The Apex Court held that such actions were not only unauthorised under the CrPC, but substantively illegal.

“If an accused has already been discharged under Section 227 CrPC, no application or action under Section 216 CrPC would be maintainable… Section 216 CrPC is not a backdoor for a second discharge after framing of charges.”

“Deletion Is Not ‘Alteration’: Legislature Has Not Empowered Courts to Drop Charges Mid-Trial”—Court Reaffirms Limited Scope of Section 216

The Court underscored the statutory language and object of Section 216:

“The trial court can only alter or add to a charge… If the legislature had intended to empower the trial court to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated.”

Relying on its recent ruling in K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024), the bench observed:

“Such applications are being filed in the trial courts sometimes in ignorance of law and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings… The practice is highly deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts.”

In K. Ravi, the Court had firmly ruled that an accused cannot seek discharge under the guise of an application under Section 216 after being charge-sheeted and after a failed discharge plea under Section 227 CrPC.

Discharge After Framing of Charge Is a Nullity—Charge Must End in Acquittal or Conviction Only

In its most categorical observation on the point, the Court held:

“Once charges have been framed by the trial court… the accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted… No shortcuts must be allowed.”

It further clarified that the use of Section 216 to eliminate existing charges without substituting or varying them within the same statute is legally impermissible. Referring to prior judgments such as Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana (2016) and Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. (2020), the Court reaffirmed that:

“The power under Section 216 CrPC is an exclusive and wide-ranging power—but it must be exercised judiciously, and it must not be construed to mean that charges can be dropped mid-trial.”

The Court endorsed the interpretation that “alter” means to vary an existing charge—not to remove or eliminate it.

High Courts and Trial Judges Cautioned: Deletion of Charges Mid-Trial Not Permitted

The bench noted with concern that the erroneous use of Section 216 CrPC had now become a tactical tool for accused persons to secure discharge after rejection of discharge applications under Section 227 CrPC, thereby derailing trials and burdening the system with avoidable litigation.

“This has become a routine practice… Sometimes in ignorance, sometimes with the sole intent of derailing the trial.”

It reiterated that once charges are framed, the matter must proceed to its logical conclusion under law, and trial courts cannot delete charges, transfer files, or convert trials under a different legal regime mid-way.

“No Court Can Delete a Charge Once Framed—Only Vary or Add to It”: Supreme Court Reiterates Position

The Court echoed its earlier view in Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1990) and recent High Court decisions such as Dev Narain v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2023), stating:

“Section 216 does not provide for deletion of a charge and the word ‘delete’ has intentionally not been used by the legislature.”

It warned that no accused can claim deletion of a charge once a proper charge has been framed, except through acquittal at the conclusion of trial.

Direction to Proceed With Trial Under NDPS Act—Illegal Discharges Set Aside

The Court held that the discharges granted by the trial courts in the present case were legally untenable. Since the accused were never acquitted, their trials must now proceed under the correct interpretation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act, as per Sanjeev V. Deshpande.

“The Trial Courts… committed a grave error while reaching the conclusion that as the offences were not triable by them, the case should be transferred to the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.”

“We direct that they be tried by the concerned Special Judge, NDPS, in accordance with law… The Trial Courts are directed to proceed with the trial and conclude it expeditiously.”

Date of Decision: 17 April 2025