Framing of Charges in Criminal Proceedings: An Overview and Remedies Available to the Accused for Dismissal (with BNSS Provisions)

Introduction

In criminal jurisprudence, the framing of charges represents a critical stage of a trial. This process is a formal declaration by the court outlining the specific accusations made against the accused. It ensures that the accused knows the charges they face, which enables them to prepare an appropriate defense. The objective is to maintain fairness and transparency within the legal framework. The recent enactment of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) introduces certain new provisions that aim to make the process more efficient and less cumbersome.

 

 What is the Framing of Charges?

 

Framing of charges occurs after the investigation is complete and the prosecution has submitted its charge sheet to the court. If the court finds prima facie evidence, it frames charges against the accused. This marks the beginning of the formal trial, where the accused can plead guilty or contest the charges.

 

Under the new framework of the BNSS, provisions related to the framing of charges are encapsulated in Section 125 of BNSS, which aligns closely with the earlier Section 228 of the CrPC. Similarly, for magistrate trials, Section 138 of the BNSS deals with the framing of charges, replacing Section 240 of the CrPC.

 

Key aspects of the framing of charges under BNSS:

 

1. The charges must specify the offense or offenses.

2. The details should include when and how the crime was allegedly committed.

3. Relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law under which the accused is charged.

 

 Legal Framework Governing the Framing of Charges Under BNSS

 

The BNSS simplifies the procedural aspects and introduces mechanisms to ensure that unnecessary delays are avoided. The key objectives of the BNSS are:

- Speedier trial process.

- Reduction in the burden on the courts by filtering out baseless cases at an earlier stage.

- Ensuring clarity and fairness in the charges brought against the accused.

 

Just like the CrPC, the court is not required to establish guilt conclusively at this stage but only needs to establish a prima facie case. This preliminary examination of evidence ensures that the accused is not put on trial without valid grounds.

 

 Grounds for Dismissal of Charges Under BNSS

 

If, during the framing of charges, the court finds no substantive evidence or prima facie case, the accused has legal recourse to seek the dismissal of the charges. The BNSS has retained several similar provisions for discharge and dismissal of charges as previously available under the CrPC, but with some modifications.

 

1. Discharge Before Framing of Charges (Sections 126 and 139 of BNSS):

   - Section 126 of BNSS replaces Section 227 of the CrPC and allows for discharge in sessions trials. The court may discharge the accused if there is no prima facie case based on the evidence available.

   - Section 139 of BNSS replaces Section 239 of the CrPC for cases tried by magistrates. This provision enables discharge when the magistrate, after reviewing the charge sheet and evidence, finds no grounds for proceeding.

 

2. Quashing of Charges (Section 284 of BNSS):

   - Section 284 of BNSS mirrors the inherent powers of the High Court provided under Section 482 of CrPC. The High Court can quash charges and criminal proceedings if it is evident that the case is frivolous, malicious, or lacks legal foundation.

   - The Bajanlal v. State of Haryana guidelines continue to serve as reference points for situations where the court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings, such as a lack of legal evidence or jurisdictional issues.

 

3. Filing a Revision Petition (Section 296 of BNSS):

   - Section 296 of BNSS replaces Section 397 of CrPC and allows the accused to challenge the framing of charges by filing a revision petition. This section provides an opportunity to correct any jurisdictional or procedural errors made during the charge-framing process.

 

4. Appeals Against Framing of Charges (Sections 367-369 of BNSS):

   - The new BNSS also provides the accused with an opportunity to challenge the charges through an appeal, much like the earlier provisions under Sections 372-374 of CrPC. If the charges were improperly framed or based on insufficient evidence, the appellate court could provide relief to the accused.

 

 Grounds for Seeking Dismissal of Charges

 

The grounds on which the accused can seek a dismissal of charges remain consistent with the earlier legal provisions under CrPC. Some of the most common grounds for dismissal include:

 

1. Absence of Prima Facie Case: If the prosecution fails to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, the accused may be discharged.

  

2. Lack of Jurisdiction: If the court does not have the proper jurisdiction over the case, the accused can challenge the framing of charges.

  

3. Barred by Law: Cases that are legally barred, such as those affected by limitations or principles like double jeopardy, can be dismissed.

  

4. Vague or Ambiguous Charges: If the charges are not specific enough, or the nature of the offense is unclear, the accused can seek dismissal.

  

5. Insufficient or Contradictory Evidence: If the prosecution's evidence is weak, speculative, or riddled with contradictions, the court may dismiss the charges.

 

 Conclusion

 

The framing of charges marks the commencement of formal criminal proceedings, and under the new Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the process has been streamlined to promote efficiency and reduce delays. The BNSS retains many features of the previous CrPC while also offering clearer guidelines for dismissal and discharge of baseless charges. Remedies such as discharge, revision petitions, and quashing of charges continue to provide the accused with protection against wrongful prosecution, ensuring that their right to a fair trial is maintained.



Stay Connected: 

Kapeesh Law Chambers 
Lawyers Chamber Block-II,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003
admin@kapeeshlawchambers.com
www.kapeeshlawchambers.com

Location: Delhi, India

Popular posts from this blog

Removing the Corporate Veil: An Analysis of Recent Precedents and Judgments

  Introduction   The doctrine of separate legal entity is a cornerstone of corporate law. Established in the landmark case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd (1897), this principle dictates that a company is distinct from its shareholders and directors. However, there are situations where courts "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil to hold individuals accountable for the company’s actions. The concept of removing the corporate veil is a legal remedy invoked in circumstances involving fraud, malfeasance, or where justice demands it.   This article delves into the modern evolution of this doctrine, analyzing recent cases and judicial trends that shed light on when and how the corporate veil can be lifted.     The Principle of Corporate Veil   In Salomon v Salomon, the House of Lords reinforced the notion that a company enjoys a distinct legal identity. Mr. Salomon, a boot manufacturer, transferred his business to a newly formed company in wh...
Read more

Ignorance of Law is No Excuse: A Detailed Analysis with Reference to Recent Supreme Court Judgments

Introduction The Legal maxim " Ignorantia juris non excusat” or “Ignorance of law is no excuse” is a fundamental principle in Indian jurisprudence, ensuring that ignorance of the law does not exempt individuals or entities from legal liability. This doctrine is crucial for the maintenance of the rule of law, ensuring uniform application and enforcement. Concept The principle that ignorance of the law does not excuse wrongdoing has its origins in Roman law and is firmly embedded in common law traditions. The assumption is that laws are publicly accessible and that all individuals have a responsibility to inform themselves about the legal requirements governing their actions. In India, this principle is a cornerstone of the legal system, upheld consistently across various legal forums, including the Supreme Court. Recent Supreme Court Judgments A notable reaffirmation of this principle came in the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Union of ...
Read more