Bombay High Court

WALMIK BABURAO KARADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

Once a charge is framed under Section 228 of the CrPC, the accused cannot be discharged under Sections 216 or 227 and must await conviction or acquittal.

Summary

The appellant sought to amend his criminal appeal to challenge the order framing a charge against him, arguing that he could still be discharged. The State contended that once a charge is framed under Section 228 of the CrPC, discharge under Sections 216 or 227 is no longer permissible. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora and Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, which held that framing a charge precludes later discharge. Consequently, the Court declined to grant the amendment and allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal and the amendment application were disposed of, with liberty to pursue any other appropriate remedy.

Issues considered

Whether an accused can be discharged after a charge has been framed under Section 228 of the CrPC
Whether an amendment to an appeal to include a challenge to the charge framing is permissible

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 216, 227, 228

Subjects

criminal procedure
charge framing
discharge application
amendment of appeal
Section 216 CrPC
Section 227 CrPC
Section 228 CrPC
appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                         1                   1023 appeal 635-25

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             1023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2025
                             WITH
             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2026
                      IN APEAL/635/2025
                             WITH
             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4863 OF 2025
                       IN APEAL/635/2025

                    WALMIK BABURAO KARAD
                              VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                  ...
Mr. Nilesh Ghanekar h/f Mr. Kulkarni Sanket S., a/w Ashish R.
Kachole, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. A. B. Girase, GP, Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya,APP & Mr. Sachin Salgare,
for Respondent-State
Mr. Z. H. Farooqui h/f Mr. N. V. Gaware, Advocate for intervenor
                                  ….

                       CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                               ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                       DATED : 28/01/2026
P. C. :

1.    Though the applicant has filed this application seeking
amendment of his appeal to incorporate a challenge to the order
dated 23/03/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Beed,
whereby a charge is framed against the appellant, but the learned
GP, by filing an affidavit in reply, contends that once the charge has
been framed against the applicant/appellant, his appeal against
the rejection of his discharge application has become infructuous.
For this purpose, the learned GP has relied upon the judgment in
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora and
                         2                   1023 appeal 635-25

Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 819, wherein it is observed in
paragraph 154 as follows:

        “We are in agreement with the view that once
        charges have been framed by the trial court in
        exercise of the powers under Section 228 of Cr.P.C.,
        the accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it
        through an exercise of the powers under Section
        227 or 216 Cr.P.C. It is reiterated that the language
        of Section 216 Cr.P.C. provides only for the addition
        and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion
        or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had
        intended to empower the Trial Court with the power
        to delete a charge at that stage, the same would
        have been expressly and unambiguously stated.
        Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the accused
        must necesarily either be convicted or acquitted of
        the charges that were so framed against him. No
        shortcuts must be allowed.”


2.   Similar observations are made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,
(1979) 2 SCC 179, in paragraph 28. Placing reliance on these
observations, we express our disinclination to grant relief in favour
of the applicant/appellant in the amendment application.


3.   Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant seeks withdrawal
of the appeal as well as the amendment application, with liberty to
pursue any appropriate remedy as permissible in law under the
circumstances. In view of the same, the appeal as well as the
                             3                1023 appeal 635-25

application for amendment stand disposed of, with liberty as
aforesaid.


4.           In view of the disposal of the main appeal, all pending
applications also stand disposed of.




( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )            ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )

VS Maind/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…