The Court further emphasised that in such matters, the courts should pass one common order that would either discharge the accused or frame charges against the accused.
The Court observed that in many cases, discharge applications were being filed by the accused, which led to two separate orders being passed by the trial courts and consequent delays in criminal trials.
“In many cases, such applications (application of discharge) are filed by the accused before the trial courts and such applications are decided by passing a separate order, which otherwise is incomplete in the absence of order framing charges, and the consolidated statutory exercise under sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. is split in two parts, thereby not only the trial courts are over burdened, but it also causes delay in conclusion of trial,” the Court noted.
The Court has now emphasised that there is no need to pass two such separate orders (for example, one order giving reasons for not discharging the accused and another order relating to the framing of charges).
The Court proceeded to direct trial courts to ensure that only one common order is passed in such matters.
“Trial courts shall decide the prosecution case for the purposes of framing of charges by passing one common order, i.e. either discharging the accused or framing charges against the accused by strictly complying with the statutory provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other applicable special statute,” the High Court ordered.
Source: Barandbench
