Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismisses plea against charge framing | Trial judges must write or dictate interim orders themselves says Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani dismissed a petition seeking quashment of charges framed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the final police report. While declining to interfere with the framing of charges, the Court directed the Trial Court to examine whether the offences mentioned are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Trial Court was also instructed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner’s counsel and modify or alter the charges if necessary in accordance with law.
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking the quashment of the order dated 06 October 2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, R.S. Pura, Jammu. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the filing of the charge sheet/final report under Section 193 BNSS dated 25 March 2022. The main ground of challenge was that the order framing charges was non-speaking, lacked application of mind, and the charges themselves were not legally sustainable.
According to the petitioner, the allegations made against him did not constitute the offences for which charges had been framed. It was contended that he, as a West Pakistan Refugee of 1947, was the only surviving legal heir, a fact that had been supported by revenue records annexed to the petition. The petitioner asserted that no false application or statement had been made before the complainant or Tehsildar, R.S. Pura, Jammu, and therefore, the invocation of criminal law provisions was unwarranted.
In support of his plea, the petitioner argued that the order dated 06 October 2023 was legally unsustainable as it lacked reasons and failed to demonstrate the application of judicial mind. He urged the High Court to quash the said order as well as the charge sheet filed against him.
The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, opposed the petition. It was submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) was registered upon the complaint of the Tehsildar, R.S. Pura, Jammu alleging the commission of cognizable offences involving cheating, forgery, and fabrication of false evidence. During the investigation, it was claimed that sufficient material had emerged to justify the filing of the final report under Section 193 BNSS. The State contended that the allegations had been established during investigation and the framing of charges was justified.
The FIR No. 192/2021 was registered at Police Station, R.S. Pura, Jammu. The investigation culminated in the filing of the final report before the Trial Court, which after consideration, framed formal charges under the aforementioned provisions of the IPC.
After considering the submissions and perusing the records, the High Court noted that the matter primarily pertained to the stage of framing of charges, where the Court is expected to assess whether there exists a prima facie case. The petitioner’s prayer for quashing the order of framing charges as well as the final report was thus contested by the State on the ground of availability of incriminating material.
The Court recorded that “the perusal of the First Information Report lodged by the Tehsildar, R. S. Pura, Jammu as well as the final report presented and pending before the learned Trial Court, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences including the offences relating to cheating, forgery, fabrication of false evidence/statement etc.”
It was stated that “it is a settled legal position that where an FIR or Final Police Report apparently discloses the Commission of cognizable offences, the Court should hesitate to interfere with the investigation in the case unless there is some clinching evidence going to the root of the matter.”
In relation to the framing of charges, the Court recorded that “it is well settled by a catena of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also of the different High Courts including this Court that at the stage of consideration of framing of charge, Court has not to conduct an inquiry but has to see whether on the basis of the documents, in support of the Police report/challan, a prima facie ground appears to be made out for framing of the charge.”
The Court further stated, “At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to consider the broader probabilities of the case and even a strong suspicion, can warrant the framing of charge.” It clarified that “mini trial is not permissible at the stage of consideration of framing of charge for the purpose of ascertaining whether the case will end in conviction or acquittal.”
Regarding the petitioner’s contention on the drafting of the impugned order, the Court recorded that “there also appears to be no illegality with the impugned order dated 06.10.2024. However, the Court agrees with the learned counsel for the petitioner in his saying that impugned order dated 06.10.2024 has not been drafted in accordance with the law and procedure which can at the most be an irregularity and not illegality.”
It also noted in a general observation, “it is being observed that most of trial Magistrates entrust the drafting of the interim orders including orders regarding framing of charge to the sub-ordinate staff, upon hearing the cases, under their verbal directions.”
In conclusion, the Court stated, “criminal Courts have the power to amend or modify the charge at any stage of the trial.”
The Court dismissed the petition, observing that there was no merit in the case. While doing so, it directed the Trial Court to examine whether, in the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the offences mentioned in the order dated 06 October 2024 were attracted.
The Trial Court was instructed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s counsel on this aspect and to modify or alter the charges, if necessary, in accordance with the law.
The matter was accordingly disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Bhagat v. UT of J&K and Anr.
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 327/2025
Bench: Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani
[Read/Download order]
