Bombay HC: once charges are framed, an accused cannot be discharged under the CrPC

On 30 October 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by an accused in a case arising from an armed assault linked to a land dispute in Dahisar, Mumbai. The applicant had been discharged by the trial court from a charge under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, but not from associated Indian Penal Code offences, and sought to have that refusal reconsidered through a revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the time the High Court heard the matter, charges had already been framed under Section 228 CrPC and the trial had reached the stage of examining nine witnesses.

Justice M.M. Sathaye held that once charges are framed, the Supreme Court's ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora bars an accused from later seeking discharge, whether under Section 227 or Section 216 CrPC: the law permits only addition or alteration of charges after framing, not deletion of an accused. While the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh had called the right to seek discharge valuable, it had also cautioned that High Courts must exercise this revisional power carefully, weighing the trial stage, witnesses already examined and judicial time invested. Applying that caution, and noting that a revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court, the High Court held the trial court's refusal to discharge the applicant from the IPC charges could not be faulted, and dismissed the revision.