Plot-Dispute Assault Case: Bombay HC Leaves IPC Charges Against Accused In Place With 9 Witnesses Examined

The Special Judge, by an order dated 27 January 2025, discharged the applicant from offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, but refused to discharge him from the IPC offences.

The State’s challenge to the MCOC discharge was pending separately.

The applicant filed this revision against the refusal to discharge him from the IPC offences.

While the revision was pending, the Trial Court framed charges on 17 December 2025 and, following the Supreme Court’s direction for an expeditious trial, proceeded to examine nine witnesses.

The State objected that the revision had become infructuous; the applicant relied on Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh to submit that the High Court could still consider it.

Section 397 CrPC confers revisional jurisdiction, but a revisional court cannot act as an appellate court or reappreciate evidence when reviewing an order refusing discharge; it must avoid a “mini-trial” (State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao).

Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh recognises discharge as a valuable right and permits careful exercise of High Court jurisdiction, while requiring the Court to act circumspectly in the interests of effective and timely criminal justice.

In Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora, the Supreme Court held that after charges are framed under Section 228 CrPC, an accused cannot thereafter be discharged under Sections 227 or 216 CrPC; Section 216 permits addition or alteration of charges, not their deletion or discharge.

The Court treated that rule as further limiting post-framing relief in the pending revision.

The Court considered that the revision challenged only the refusal to discharge the applicant from the IPC offences, while the MCOC discharge was under separate challenge by the State.

By the time the revision was considered, charges had been framed and nine witnesses examined.

In light of the trial’s progress, the Supreme Court’s direction for expedition, and the caution required by Sanjay Kumar Rai, the Court declined to undertake an extensive reconsideration of the charge-sheet material.

The allegations concerned a violent assault arising from a dispute over a plot; the prosecution relied, among other things, on eyewitness statements indicating the applicant’s presence, call and subscriber data, and weapons recovered during the investigation.

Assessing that material in detail would amount to a mini-trial, which was outside the proper scope of revision.

The Criminal Revision Application was dismissed.