K. RAVI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 29-08-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 700 : 2024 INSC 642
K. Ravi 
v. 
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2024)
29 August 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the right of the accused to file a fresh application 
u/s.216 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by 
the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge 
u/s.227 Cr.P.C. has already been dismissed; and as regards the 
maintainability of the revision application u/s.397 Cr.P.C. against 
the order dismissing application seeking modification of charge 
framed which would be an interlocutory order.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of 
charge – s.227 – Discharge – On facts, in a murder trial, 
accused filed application u/s.227 seeking discharge from the 
case – Dismissal of application by the Sessions court as well 
as the High Court – Accused then filed application u/s.216 
seeking alteration of the charge – Application dismissed by 
the Sessions court, however, revision application allowed 
by the High Court – Legality of:
Held: s. 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh 
application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the 
court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge 
u/s.227 has already been dismissed – Order dismissing application 
seeking modification of charge would be an interlocutory order 
and in view of the express bar contained in s.397(2), the revision 
application itself is not maintainable – Accused miserably failed 
to get himself discharged from the case in the first round of 
litigation, when he had filed the application u/s.227, still however 
he filed another vexatious application seeking modification of 
charge u/s.216 to derail the criminal proceedings – High Court, 
on an absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard 
* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
701
K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
of the settled legal position, allowed the revision application filed 
by the accused, though legally untenable, and set aside the 
charge framed by the Sessions Court against the accused – Said 
order being ex facie illegal, untenable and dehors the material 
on record, is set aside – Order passed by the Sessions Court is 
restored – Accused having sufficiently derailed the proceedings 
by filing frivolous and untenable applications one after the other 
misusing the process of law, cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by 
the accused to the appellant – s.397 – Costs. [Paras 8, 10-13]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of 
charge – Accused filing a fresh application u/s.216 for 
alteration of charge, when his application seeking discharge 
u/s.227 has already been dismissed – Correctness:
Held: s.216 is an enabling provision which enables the court 
to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is 
pronounced, and if any alternation or addition to a charge is made, 
the court has to follow the procedure as contained therein – s.216 
does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application 
seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, 
more particularly when his application seeking discharge u/s.227 
has already been dismissed – Unfortunately, such applications 
are being filed in the trial courts sometimes in ignorance of 
law and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings –  
Once such applications though untenable are filed, the trial courts 
have no alternative but to decide them, and then again such 
orders would be challenged before the higher courts, and the 
whole criminal trial would get derailed – Such practice is highly 
deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the 
courts – Judicial deprecation. [Para 11]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Calling for records 
to exercise powers of revision – Scope of s.397:
Held: Scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction u/s.397 
is extremely limited – Apart from the fact that s.397(2) prohibits 
the Court from exercising the powers of revision, even the powers 
u/s.397(1) thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only 
where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there 
is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded 
by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is 
ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely 
702
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supre

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.