Accused ordered to pay ₹10,000 each for repeated discharge pleas; Karnataka High Court says trial court may strike their defence if unpaid

The petitioners, accused Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7, faced proceedings for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Their earlier discharge application had been rejected on 6 June 2008.

After the complainant and two witnesses were examined as PWs 1–3 and documents were marked as Exs. P1–P62 during evidence before charge, the petitioners filed another discharge application.

The JMFC rejected it on 20 January 2020, and the Sessions Court dismissed their revision on 23 March 2020.

The petitioners then sought relief under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, challenging both orders.

1. Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the petitioners’ renewed application for discharge after an earlier discharge application had been rejected and evidence before charge had been recorded

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the trial and revisional court orders

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (identified in the heading alongside Section 528 BNSS) to challenge the orders.

The Court applied the principle that a discharge request should not be repeatedly renewed after it has already been considered and rejected, particularly where the court has found prima facie material to proceed and evidence before charge has since been recorded.

It also treated an attempt to re-agitate grounds concerning cognizance, which had not been challenged in the petition, as insufficient to warrant interference.

No precedent was cited in the order.

The High Court noted that the trial court had previously considered the grounds and material and rejected discharge in 2008.

The renewed application was made in 2020, after the complainant and two witnesses had testified and documents had been marked.

The Court found that the trial and revisional courts had considered the available material and found a prima facie basis to proceed.

It therefore regarded the repeated application as an abuse of process and held that the petitioners’ arguments did not justify interference under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

It directed that, if the costs were not paid and the receipt produced within that period, the trial court should proceed against the petitioners by striking out their defence.