K. RAVIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

                  [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 Supreme Court Reports


       by framing the charge – Court exercising revisional jurisdiction
       u/s.397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the
       order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with
       the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application for
       modification of the charge u/s.216 CrPC, which order otherwise
       would fall in the category of an interlocutory order. [Para 10]

                               Case Law Cited
       Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another [2012] 7 SCR 988 :
       (2012) 9 SCC 460 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                               List of Keywords
       Application u/s.216 Cr.P.C.; Framing of charge by the court;
       Maintainability of the revision application u/s.397 Cr.P.C.;
       Modification of charge; Interlocutory order; Alteration of charge;
       Discharge; Vexatious application; Extraneous consideration;
       Frivolous and untenable applications; Enabling provision; Ignorance
       of law; Practice highly deplorable; Powers of Revision; Revisional
       Jurisdiction.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3598
       of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2017 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in CRLRC No. 1268 of 2016
                           Appearances for Parties
       V. Elanchezhiyan, V. Rama Krishnan, Padhmanabha Raja K.R.,
       Shafik Ahmed, Nasim Anwar, Ms. Anju, Manoj Kumar, Ms. Anupama
       Singh, Ms. Parul Priya, Tushar Pahwa, Ms. Apsana Khatoon, Advs.
       for the Appellant.
       Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advs., Sabarish
       Subramanian, C. Kranthi Kumar, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Naman
       Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Sarathraj B, Ms. Shakun Sharma, Ms. Pracheta
       Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz, Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Ms.
       Aarjoo Rawat, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                      703

                    K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment
     Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1.   Leave granted.
2.   The instant appeal filed by the Appellant – Defacto Complainant
     arises out of an extremely unusual and untenable Judgment and
     Order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
     Madras in Criminal Revision being Crl.R.C. No.1268 of 2016 filed by
     the Respondent No. 2 (originally Accused No. 2) under Section 397
     and 401 of Cr.P.C., whereby the High Court while allowing the said
     Revision Application set aside the order dated 18.10.2016 passed
     by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri framing charge in
     SC No.90 of 2015, and directed the further investigation in Crime
     No.2074 of 2009 under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
3.   The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that an FIR being
     No. 2074 of 2009 came to be registered on 24.11.2009 at Police
     Station, Dharmapuri against 9 accused including the Respondent
     No. 2 (A-2) for the offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 307
     and 302 of IPC. The said FIR was registered at the instance of the
     defacto complainant ADMK Ravi i.e., the present appellant. It was
     alleged inter alia in the said FIR that on 24.11.2009, the accused
     no. 1 S.R. Vetrivel, AIADMK Town Secretary along with his group
     prevented the complainant and his group from filing the nomination
     at AIADMK Party Office at Dharmapuri and also started threatening
     the complainant. The Accused Vetrivel thereafter shouted to bring
     weapons that were kept in a vehicle parked at the ground floor of
     the Dharmapuri District Party Office and the Accused Baskar son
     of Mathikonpalayam Pachiyappan (the Respondent No. 2 herein)
     brought the weapons kept in his Tata Safari White Car. Thereafter,
     the accused Vetrivel holding the knife ran towards the brother of the
     complainant i.e. Veeramani, who was running towards the complainant.
     Thereafter the accused Mathikonpalayam Annadurai caught hold of
     Veeramani and the accused Vetrivel stabbed Veeramani with knife
     on his chest and the accused Baskar (R-2) gave a blow on the head
     of Veeramani repeatedly and also beat the complainant with the
     iron pipes. The other accused also assaulted the complainant and
     others as narrated in the said FIR. Thereafter the complainant and
704                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       his brother Veeramani were taken to the Dharmapuri government
       hospital by some people for treatment, where his brother Veeramani
       expired during the course of treatment.
4.     The Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient evidence against
       all the accused submitted chargesheet implicating 31 accused before
       the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court
       of Sessions for trial.
5.     The Respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Sessions
       Court seeking his discharge from the case under Section 227 of
       Cr.P.C. in the said Sessions case, which came to be dismissed by
       the Sessions Court vide the order dated 01.07.2016. The said order
       came to be challenged by the Respondent No. 2 before the High
       Court by filing a Revision Application being No. Crl.R.C. No. 953 of
       2016. The said Revision Application came to be dismissed by the
       High Court vide the order dated 05.08.2016 specifically holding that
       there were sufficient incriminating materials available against the
       Respondent No.2 to frame the charge and that the Sessions Court
       had rightly dismissed the application filed by the Respondent No. 2
       under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
6.     It appears that thereafter the Sessions Court framed charge against
       all the accused. The Respondent No. 2 (A-2) was charged for the
       offence under Section 302 r/w 149, 147, 148 and 324 of IPC. The
       Respondent No.2 along with other accused again filed a vexatious
       application being CRMP No. 1679/2016 in SC No. 90/2015, under
       Section 216 of Cr.P.C seeking alteration of the charge on the ground
       that the accused no. 2 and others were not present at the scene of
       offence on 24.11.2009. The said application came to be dismissed
       by the Sessions Court vide the order dated 18.10.2016 specifically
       observing that there were statements of eye witnesses available
       on record to show that the Respondent No.2 (A-2) was present at
       the scene of occurrence. From the statements of LW-1 Ravi, LW-2
       Govindam, LW-3 Tamilarasu, LW-4 Dhandapani and LW-5 Andiappan
       the role of the accused no. 1 and 2 was also revealed. It was also
       observed that the charge was framed against all the accused based
       on material on record available with the Court, and that as per the
       settled legal position the charge could be altered at any stage of
       the proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order the Respondent
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                              705

                        K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.


      No.2 preferred the Revisional Application being Crl.R.C. No.1268 of
      2016, wherein the High Court passed the impugned order as stated
      hereinabove.
7.    From the above conspectus of events, it clearly transpires that the
      Respondent No.2 after having failed to get himself discharged from
      the Sessions Court as well as from the High Court in the first round
      of litigation, filed another vexatious application before the Sessions
      Court under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., after the framing of charge by the
      Sessions Court, for modification of the charge. The Sessions Court
      having dismissed the said application, the Respondent No.2 preferred
      the Revisional Application before the High Court under Section 397
      and 401 of Cr.P.C. The High Court in its unusual impugned order,
      discharged the Respondent No. 2 (A-2) from the charges levelled
      against him, though his earlier application seeking discharge was
      already dismissed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the
      High Court and that position had attained finality. The High Court
      utterly failed to realise that the order impugned against it was the
      order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application of the
      Respondent No. 2 seeking modification of the charge framed against
      him under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., and the said order was an order
      of interlocutory in nature.
8.    It is pertinent to note that the order dismissing application seeking
      modification of charge would be an interlocutory order and in view of
      the express bar contained in sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.,
      the Revision Application itself was not maintainable.
9.    At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the observations made
      by this Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another,1
      explaining the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. It was held that -
             “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
             power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
             court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
             and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a
             case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent
             defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be
             a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for


1    [2012] 7 SCR 988 : (2012) 9 SCC 460
706                                                       [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of
          it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to
          be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various
          judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
          jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
          challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance
          with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based
          on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
          discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are
          not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each
          case would have to be determined on its own merits.
          13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
          jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
          cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt
          restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or
          interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that
          the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not
          lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with
          the question as to whether the charge has been framed
          properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it
          may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional
          jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the
          categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much
          advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.”
10. Thus, the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under
    Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that
    sub-section 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the
    powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 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 by framing the charge. The
    Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should
    be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the
    charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the
    Trial Court dismissing the application for modification of the charge
    under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the
    category of an interlocutory order.
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                        707

                    K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.


11. It is trite to say that Section 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. Section 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
    under Section 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. Suffice it to say that such practice is highly deplorable,
    and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts.
12. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, as stated here
    in above the Respondent No.2 had miserably failed to get himself
    discharged from the case in the first round of litigation, when he
    had filed the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C, still however he
    filed another vexatious application seeking modification of charge
    under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to derail the criminal proceedings.
    The said Application also having been dismissed by the Sessions
    Court, the order was challenged before the High Court by filing
    Revision Application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The High Court, on
    an absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard of
    the settled legal position, allowed the Revision Application filed by
    the Respondent No. 2, though legally untenable, and set aside the
    charge framed by the Sessions Court against the Respondent No.
    2. The said order being ex facie illegal, untenable and dehors the
    material on record, the same deserves to be set aside.
13. In that view of the matter, impugned order is set aside. The order
    passed by the Sessions Court is restored. The Respondent no. 2
    (A-2) having sufficiently derailed the proceedings by filing frivolous
    and untenable applications one after the other misusing the process
    of law, the present Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be
    paid by the Respondent No. 2 to the Appellant within two weeks.
    The Respondent No. 2 shall first deposit the cost in the office of this
    Court, which shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the Appellant.
708                                                        [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


14. The Sessions Court is directed to proceed further with the trial against
    all the accused including the Respondent No. 2 (A-2) in accordance
    with law and as expeditiously as possible. All the parties are directed
    to cooperate the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as
    possible. It is further directed that non-cooperation of any of the
    accused in proceeding with the trial shall entail cancellation of their
    bail.
15. The Appeal stands allowed, with cost as directed. The office shall
    ensure compliance of the order of payment of cost by the Respondent
    No. 2, and report to the Court in case of non-compliance.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain