Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandi Puliya, was initially tried and acquitted in 2010 for offences under Sections 148, 149, 448, 364, and 506 IPC in connection with the kidnapping of Ajay Acharya. Subsequently, in 2011, a second FIR was lodged alleging that the appellant and others caused the death of the same person, Ajay Acharya, after his skeleton was discovered and identified. The appellant sought quashing of the second FIR, but the High Court dismissed the petition, granting liberty to raise all points at the stage of framing of charge. The appellant then filed a discharge application under Section 227 read with Section 300(1) Cr.P.C., arguing that the second trial was barred by the principle of autrefois acquit. The trial court dismissed the application, stating that the objection could be raised at the time of framing of charge, not at discharge. The High Court confirmed this order. The Supreme Court held that the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. precedes the framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C., and it is at this stage that the court must consider a plea under Section 300 Cr.P.C. The trial court's approach was erroneous. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court to consider the Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. application along with the discharge application, prior to framing of charge. The trial court was directed to complete this exercise within six weeks.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Stage of Consideration - Section 227, 228, 300(1) Cr.P.C. - The stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is prior to framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C., and it is at that stage alone that the court can consider an application under Section 300 Cr.P.C. - The trial court erred in deferring the plea of double jeopardy to the stage of framing of charge - Held that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to consider the Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. plea at the discharge stage (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court can defer consideration of an application under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. to the stage of framing of charge, or whether it must be considered at the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and remanded the matter to the trial court to consider the application under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. along with the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., prior to framing of charge. The trial court was directed to complete the exercise within six weeks.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. precedes framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
- Section 300 Cr.P.C. plea must be considered at discharge stage
- Second trial on same facts for different offence may be barred under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C.
Case Details
2022 LawText (SC) (12) 47
Criminal Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising from SLP(Criminal) No. 9897/2022)
Siddhartha Dave (for appellant), Sunil Fernandes (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against dismissal of revision application challenging order rejecting discharge application under Section 227 read with Section 300(1) Cr.P.C.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought discharge from second FIR on ground of bar under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. (double jeopardy) after acquittal in first FIR for kidnapping of same person.
Filing Reason
Appellant was acquitted in first FIR for kidnapping; second FIR for murder of same person was lodged after discovery of skeleton; appellant claimed second trial is barred.
Previous Decisions
Trial court acquitted appellant in first FIR on 21.05.2010; High Court dismissed quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 29.04.2016 with liberty to raise points at framing of charge; trial court dismissed discharge application on 04.03.2022; High Court confirmed on 27.06.2022.
Issues
Whether the trial court can defer consideration of a plea under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. to the stage of framing of charge, or must consider it at the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
Whether the second trial for murder based on same facts is barred under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. after acquittal for kidnapping.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: Stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. precedes framing of charge; Section 300 Cr.P.C. plea must be considered at that stage; once charge is framed, accused cannot pray for discharge. Relied on Ratilal Bhanji Mithani and State v. Nalini.
Respondent: Acquittal in first FIR was for kidnapping, not murder; second FIR based on discovery of skeleton; Section 300 Cr.P.C. not attracted; earlier quashing petition dismissed; appellant can raise plea at framing of charge.
Ratio Decidendi
The stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is prior to framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C., and it is at that stage alone that the court can consider an application under Section 300 Cr.P.C. The trial court erred in deferring the plea of double jeopardy to the stage of framing of charge.
Judgment Excerpts
The stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is a stage prior to framing of the charge (under Section 228 Cr.P.C.) and it is at that stage alone that the court can consider the application under Section 300 Cr.P.C.
The learned trial Court has erred in not considering the application under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. at the time of framing of charge and/or prior to framing of the charge.
Procedural History
Appellant was acquitted in first FIR (kidnapping) on 21.05.2010. Second FIR for murder lodged on 06.06.2011. High Court dismissed quashing petition on 29.04.2016 with liberty to raise points at framing of charge. Trial court dismissed discharge application on 04.03.2022. High Court confirmed on 27.06.2022. Supreme Court allowed appeal on 09.12.2022 and remanded.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 227, 228, 300(1), 221, 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 148, 149, 448, 364, 506, 302, 346
