Stage Of Framing Charge: Court Must Only Consider If Strong Suspicion Of Offence Exists, Not Weigh Probative Value Of Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is concerned with the existence of strong suspicion and not with proof of guilt." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgment dated 17 September 2026, held that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or weigh the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.

Dismissing a revision petition filed by the directors of M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd., the Bench of Justice Manisha Batra observed that the court's limited role is to determine if the material collected during investigation, taken at its face value, discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences.

The CBI had registered an FIR in 2015 alleging that the petitioners, through their company, procured credit facilities worth crores from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur by submitting forged work orders and fabricated financial statements. Despite the company entering into a One Time Settlement (OTS) with the bank, the CBI continued the prosecution for criminal conspiracy, forgery, and offences under the PC Act. The petitioners sought discharge, which was denied by the trial court, leading them to approach the High Court.

The primary issue was whether the trial court erred in framing charges against the petitioners despite the existence of a One Time Settlement with the bank. The court was also called upon to determine whether the directors could be prosecuted for the acts of the company and whether the absence of a demand for illegal gratification negated the applicability of the PC Act at the stage of framing charges.

The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is meant only to correct patent defects or jurisdictional errors. Relying on the precedent in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Bench clarified that the Court must not engage in a meticulous examination of evidence when an order appears to be in accordance with law.

"Court Must Not Conduct A Mini-Trial"

The judge noted that the petitioners' arguments—such as the nature of work orders being mere proposals or the evidentiary value of photocopies—are matters for trial. The court emphasized that it cannot decide the admissibility or reliability of evidence at the threshold, as doing so would amount to conducting a mini-trial which is impermissible under the law.

"Strong Suspicion Is Sufficient For Framing Charge"

The court underscored that if the materials on record permit a conclusion that the commission of an offence is a "probable consequence," a case for framing a charge is made out. Citing State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, the court clarified that the standard of proof for framing a charge is significantly lower than the standard required for a final conviction.

"If the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence."

Effect of One Time Settlement on Criminal Proceedings

Addressing the OTS, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had already set aside a previous quashing order by the High Court, explicitly observing that economic offences impact society at large. Therefore, while a settlement might be a point of defence at trial, it does not, by itself, warrant a discharge when the prosecution alleges fraud, forgery, and conspiracy involving public funds.

Offences under the PC Act

Regarding the PC Act, the court rejected the argument that an absence of "demand" for gratification necessitates discharge. The bench held that the investigation material, including the role of the branch manager and the alleged diversion of funds, raised sufficient grounds to presume the commission of offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, which must be tested through evidence in the trial court.

The High Court upheld the order of the Special Judge, CBI, dismissing the discharge application and directing the trial to proceed. The court clarified that its findings are limited to the stage of framing charges and do not prejudice the petitioners' rights to present their full defence during the trial.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2026