Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (April 17) held that the power under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot be invoked to delete charges already framed against an accused, as it can only be used to add or alter the existing charges.

The analogous provision to Section 216 CrPC in the BNSS is Section 239.

“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 CrPC, the accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers under Sections 227 or 216 CrPC. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 CrPC 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 necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed.”, the Court observed.

The Court approved the Allahabad High Court's decision Dev Narain v. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3216, where it was held that a power to delete charges is not conferred on the Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C.

“It was added that a charge once framed, it must lead either to an acquittal or conviction at the end of the trial and charges cannot be permitted to be deleted mid-trial.”, the court noted.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing two criminal appeals where the trial court in effect deleted the charge framed for the offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act and then transferred the file to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, without arriving at a decision to acquit the accused as regards the charges already framed under the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold the trial court's findings, the Department of Revenue Intelligence approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned findings, the Judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala observed:

“We are, therefore, of the view that both the Trial Court and the High Court committed an error in holding that the offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act is not made out. The Trial Courts in both the appeals could also not have discharged/deleted the charge under the NDPS Act framed against the accused persons while disposing of an application under Section 216 CrPC. This is something not permissible within our criminal procedure and the High Court unfortunately failed to take notice of this aspect.”, the court observed.

Since the Respondents-accused concerned in both the appeals were not acquitted in their respective trials, the Court directed that they be tried by the concerned Special Judge, NDPS, in accordance with law.

Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Click here to read/download the judgment