Wrong Sub-Section In Chargesheet Not Fatal | Orissa High Court Rejects Innocence Claim And Upholds Investigation
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho declined to quash criminal proceedings at the stage of preliminary charge sheet, holding that the pendency of further investigation does not vitiate the proceedings. The Court ruled that the petitioner may raise all legal contentions at the time of framing of charge or during trial, and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The Court disposed of the matter without granting a stay, stating that procedural irregularities in citing the wrong statutory subsection do not nullify the investigation or the proceedings.
The petitioner filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the proceedings in C.T. Case No. 914 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 58 of 2024, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in the district of Mayurbhanj. The charge sheet in the case had been submitted under Sections 498A, 313, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioner contended that the allegations in the FIR were based on a consensual relationship with the victim, who was an adult at the time of the events in question. It was argued that they were never married and that the claim of forced abortion was false. He further submitted that the charge sheet filed on 14th November 2024 was merely a preliminary charge sheet and that the investigation remained open, thereby prejudicing his defence.
Referring to Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the petitioner claimed that further investigation was not permitted under the provision, and unless the final charge sheet was filed, the trial should not proceed. It was further argued that any material which might subsequently emerge during the final investigation could benefit the petitioner, and thus, staying the trial was necessary to prevent prejudice.
The Additional Standing Counsel, representing the State of Odisha, submitted that the charge sheet was validly filed and disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 313 IPC. He pointed out that although the investigation was kept open, that did not preclude the court from proceeding with the trial. It was submitted that any claim of innocence could be raised by the petitioner before the trial court, as the case had already been committed for trial.
The State also pinpointed out that the allegation regarding the victim being forced to undergo abortion constituted a cognizable offence under Section 313 IPC. The accused’s contention that there was no marriage, and that the relationship was consensual, was a matter to be decided during trial and not at the stage of quashing.
The Court reviewed the FIR and the preliminary charge sheet submitted on 14th November 2024. The charge sheet indicated that while the investigation remained open, prima facie evidence was sufficient to charge the petitioner. It was also noted that the charge sheet cited Section 193(8) of BNSS for keeping the investigation open, while the correct provision was Section 193(9).
Despite the petitioner’s claim that new evidence might emerge in his favour, the Court found no grounds to halt the ongoing proceedings. The error in citing the sub-section was deemed inconsequential, as the substantive power for continued investigation was available under the BNSS.
The Court also took note that the case had already been committed to the Sessions Court and was listed for framing of charges on 2nd March 2025. The trial court had already taken cognizance of the offences based on the materials filed with the charge sheet.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan & Another, (2024) 3 SCC 734, which held that filing a preliminary charge sheet and keeping the investigation open does not entitle the accused to claim procedural default. Once cognizance is taken based on available material, further investigation—whether against co-accused or involving supplementary evidence—does not invalidate the original charge sheet or proceedings.
The Court examined the legal implications of the petitioner’s objections and recorded: “So the submission of the petitioner that the police may find materials in support of the innocence of the petitioner is fantastic and liable for rejection.”
On the issue of misquoting Section 193(8) of BNSS instead of the applicable provision under Section 193(9), the Court stated: “Merely because a wrong sub-section has been mentioned in the charge sheet, it will not render the investigation illegal or non-est.”
It further observed: “As the case has been committed, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings on the ground that final charge sheet has not been filed.”
Addressing the petitioner’s argument that proceedings should be stayed, the Court recorded:“I am also of the view that the further proceedings in the Sessions Trial are not liable to be stayed on the ground that final charge sheet has not been filed.”
Referring to the procedural rights of the petitioner, the Court added:“The CRLMC is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charge if charge has not been filed or during trial, which shall be considered in accordance with law.”
The Court disposed of the criminal miscellaneous case, granting the petitioner the liberty to raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charge, if the charge had not yet been filed, or during the course of trial.
It directed that any such contentions shall be considered in accordance with law. The matter was concluded with these observations.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jayakrishna Mahapatra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S. J. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel
Case Title: Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of Odisha
Case Number: CRLMC No. 1056 of 2025
Bench: Justice Savitri Ratho
[Read/Download order]
