Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, presided by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, set aside the order framing charges against the petitioner accused of unauthorised moneylending and cheating, holding that a court cannot frame charges using printed formats with blanks filled in. The Court observed that such a practice violates Section 240(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 263(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, both of which mandate that a charge must be framed in writing.
Justice Kunhikrishnan noted, “I am surprised to see such a charge framed by a court of law. This is not the manner in which a charge is to be framed.” The Court clarified that while a model Form is prescribed under CrPC, courts cannot use it as a pre-printed template to mechanically fill case details.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2019 framing charges and allowed the petitioner to file a fresh discharge petition within three weeks. The Magistrate was directed to decide the discharge petition within four months, without insisting on the petitioner’s personal appearance.
Facts
The petitioner was accused of operating “Saro Finance Company”, allegedly engaged in unauthorised moneylending and charging exorbitant interest without a valid licence. It was alleged that the accused collected cheques and signed stamp papers from customers as security for loans advanced.
The case originated from Crime No. 884/2011 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, initially charge-sheeted under Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. Subsequently, following further investigation, the police filed a supplementary charge sheet adding Section 420 IPC (cheating).
The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in Crl. M.C. No. 8883/2019, where the Court permitted him to file a discharge petition in absentia. Meanwhile, the second accused in the same case had already been discharged. However, when the petitioner sought to file his discharge petition, the Magistrate had already framed charges, thus denying him the opportunity to seek discharge. This led to the present revision petition challenging the legality of the charge framing order.
Issues
- Whether the trial court’s practice of framing charges using a printed format violates the procedural mandate under CrPC and BNSS.
- Whether the accused is entitled to an opportunity to file a discharge petition before a fresh charge is framed.
- Whether the Magistrate’s action in mechanically filling in a pre-printed form amounts to failure of judicial application of mind.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, represented by his counsel, contended that the Magistrate’s order framing charges was mechanical and legally unsustainable, as it was based on a printed pro forma with blanks filled in, without independent judicial reasoning. It was argued that Section 240(1) of CrPC and its corresponding provision in Section 263(1) of BNSS, 2023 require that charges must be framed in writing, reflecting judicial application of mind to the facts and materials.
Further, the petitioner emphasized that a right to file a discharge petition is an essential procedural safeguard. The denial of such an opportunity amounted to a violation of fair trial principles under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since the second accused had already been discharged, parity required that the petitioner be allowed to file a discharge petition as well.
The petitioner urged that the framing of charges in printed format demonstrated non-application of mind, as the court merely filled in blanks without specifying how ingredients of Section 420 IPC or the Money Lenders Act were made out.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented by the Senior Public Prosecutor, conceded that the charge was indeed framed using a printed format and did not contain any independent reasoning. However, it was argued that this was a clerical irregularity that could be cured under Section 464 CrPC, and did not warrant setting aside the entire proceeding.
Nevertheless, the prosecution agreed that the accused may be granted an opportunity to file a discharge petition and that the Magistrate may reframe charges in compliance with procedural requirements, thereby avoiding prejudice to the accused.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 240(1) CrPC (framing of charge in warrant cases based on police report) and Section 263(1) BNSS, 2023, which replaces the CrPC provision but retains its substantive essence. Both provisions explicitly mandate that the charge “shall be in writing” and must clearly specify the offence alleged.
Justice Kunhikrishnan emphasized that the purpose of framing a charge is to inform the accused of the precise allegations so as to enable him to prepare his defence. The charge, therefore, cannot be reduced to a clerical exercise.
The Court held that pre-printed formats violate the spirit of Section 240/263, as they do not reflect judicial application of mind. The judge stated that while the CrPC contains a “Form for Charge” in Schedule II, it is only illustrative, not prescriptive. Courts must draft charges in writing tailored to the facts of each case.
By allowing a printed format to substitute judicial reasoning, the Magistrate had abdicated his duty and thereby committed a procedural irregularity that vitiated the order itself.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 – The Supreme Court held that framing a charge requires judicial satisfaction that a prima facie case exists, not a mere mechanical act.
Applied here: The Court reiterated that judicial satisfaction must be evident from the charge order itself. - Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 – The Court clarified that while evaluating discharge, the trial judge must consider the totality of the material and apply judicial discretion.
Applied here: Highlighted the necessity of allowing the petitioner to file a discharge petition before reframing charges. - State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 – The Supreme Court held that courts possess inherent power to prevent abuse of process and must ensure that only legitimate prosecutions continue.
Applied here: Reinforced that framing of charge without application of mind amounts to procedural abuse warranting interference under revision.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Kunhikrishnan categorically observed that using a pre-printed template to frame charges “reflects a disturbing procedural lapse”. The Court expressed disapproval of such practice and reiterated that judicial officers must frame charges in written, reasoned form, not through mechanical reproduction of formats.
The Bench held that the impugned order of 09.12.2019 was unsustainable as it demonstrated no independent reasoning or satisfaction that offences under Section 420 IPC or the Kerala Money Lenders Act were made out.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order and granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh discharge petition within three weeks. The Magistrate was directed to dispose of the discharge petition within four months, without insisting on personal attendance of the petitioner.
The Court’s ruling thus reaffirmed procedural propriety and accountability in subordinate courts, ensuring that accused persons are afforded all statutory safeguards before being subjected to trial.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s decision underscores that judicial functions cannot be delegated to clerical templates. Charges must be written, specific, and reflective of judicial scrutiny. By setting aside the mechanically framed charge, the Court preserved the accused’s right to a fair and reasoned proceeding, consistent with Article 21.
The revision petition was allowed, the impugned charge order quashed, and liberty was granted to file a fresh discharge petition to be decided expeditiously by the trial court.
Implications
This ruling serves as a strong judicial reminder to Magistrates and trial courts that:
- Charges must be framed in writing with judicial application of mind.
- Use of pre-printed formats is impermissible under CrPC/BNSS.
- Accused persons are entitled to a fair opportunity to seek discharge before charges are framed.
The decision also establishes procedural accountability in subordinate courts and reinforces that technical shortcuts cannot replace judicial reasoning.
FAQs
1. Can a court use a printed template to frame a charge?
No. The Kerala High Court held that a printed or pre-typed format violates Section 240 CrPC and Section 263 BNSS. Each charge must be individually written and reasoned.
2. What remedy does an accused have if charges are framed mechanically?
The accused can challenge such an order in revision before the High Court, which can set it aside and allow a fresh opportunity to seek discharge.
3. What timeline did the Court prescribe for the discharge petition?
The High Court directed that the discharge petition be filed within three weeks and decided within four months, without requiring the accused’s personal presence.
