Trial courts should decide on framing of charges based on prosecution's evidence alone: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), trial courts must decide on whether to frame charges or discharge an accused by examining the prosecution's material alone and that there is no need for an accused to file any discharge application [Pramod Pandey and 5 Others V. State of U.P. and Another]..A Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj acknowledged that at the stage of deciding whether to frame charges or order a discharge, the accused is afforded an opportunity to be heard. However, the Court explained that this does not mean that the trial court is expected to analyse the proposed defence of the accused or that the accused should file an application for discharge under Section 245 of the CrPC."At the stage of considering the prosecution case either for discharge of the accused or for framing charges, the court is to examine the material relied upon by prosecution alone, and since, the proposed defence of the accused cannot be considered, who is to be only afforded an opportunity of hearing, therefore, there is even no necessity to file an application for discharge by the accused," the Court said in its May 31 order..The Court further emphasised that in such matters, the courts should pass one common order that would either discharge the accused or frame charges against the accused. The Court observed that in many cases, discharge applications were being filed by the accused, which led to two separate orders being passed by the trial courts and consequent delays in criminal trials. "In many cases, such applications (application of discharge) are filed by the accused before the trial courts and such applications are decided by passing a separate order, which otherwise is incomplete in the absence of order framing charges, and the consolidated statutory exercise under sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. is split in two parts, thereby not only the trial courts are over burdened, but it also causes delay in conclusion of trial," the Court noted. The Court has now emphasised that there is no need to pass two such separate orders (for example, one order giving reasons for not discharging the accused and another order relating to the framing of charges).The Court proceeded to direct trial courts to ensure that only one common order is passed in such matters. "Trial courts shall decide the prosecution case for the purposes of framing of charges by passing one common order, i.e. either discharging the accused or framing charges against the accused by strictly complying with the statutory provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other applicable special statute," the High Court ordered. .The High Court made the observations while dismissing an appeal challenging a trial court's decision to reject discharge applications filed by six persons accused of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for the offences of causing hurt and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). "It is trite law that at the stage of considering the material on record for the purposes of discharge or framing of charges, the proposed defense of the accused is not to be analyzed ... the application moved by the appellants under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. was not at all maintainable," the High Court observed, before dismissing their appeal as devoid of merit. .Advocate Kamlesh Singh appeared for the appellants while Government Advocate Avanindra Kumar Mishra represented the State..[Read Order]