Accused has no statutory right to file a protest petition against a positive charge-sheet.

The applicant filed a Criminal Revision under Section 438 read with Sections 442 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging an order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Special Judge (OAW) and 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.

An FIR (No. 628/2025) was registered against the applicant following allegations by the prosecutrix that he induced a physical relationship through a false promise of marriage, subsequently refusing to marry her.

Following a charge-sheet filed under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the Magistrate took cognizance on 12.02.2026.

On 05.05.2026, the applicant filed a "Protest Petition" challenging the investigation and cognizance. However, on 06.05.2026, the Trial Court proceeded to frame charges under Sections 69 and 296 of the BNS without explicitly adjudicating the Protest Petition first.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in law by framing charges without first adjudicating upon the Protest Petition filed by the accused against a positive police report.

2. Whether the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to frame additional charges under Section 296 of the BNS when the same was not invoked in the FIR or the police report.

The statutory right to a Protest Petition primarily arises when a Magistrate intends to accept a negative (closure) report to protect the informant's interests.

A Trial Court is not bound by the specific penal sections cited in a police report; if the material on record discloses the ingredients of a different or additional offense, the court possesses the jurisdiction to frame such charges.

Revisional jurisdiction is intended to correct patent jurisdictional defects or manifest errors of law rather than act as a second appeal.

The High Court observed that the Revisionist’s "Protest Petition" against a positive charge-sheet was essentially a plea for discharge.

Under the BNSS, an accused does not have a statutory right to a "mini-trial" via a protest petition when a positive report is filed; rather, the appropriate remedy is to argue for discharge.

The Trial Court recorded the defense's arguments for discharge but found prima facie material in the charge-sheet suggesting sexual intercourse by deceptive means (Section 69) and the uttering of obscene words in public (Section 296).

The High Court reasoned that by framing charges, the Trial Court impliedly rejected the grounds for discharge mentioned in the protest petition.

The Trial Court correctly identified factual allegations in the witness statements that satisfied the ingredients of the offense under Section 296, regardless of their absence in the initial FIR.

The Trial Court acted within its jurisdiction in framing a charge under Section 296 BNS based on the material on record.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the order dated 06.05.2026 and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.