The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an accused has no statutory right to file a protest petition against a chargesheet seeking a pre-trial examination of the investigation before charges are framed, clarifying that such petitions are primarily available to informants when a closure report is filed. The Court observed that an accused’s remedy at the pre-trial stage is to seek discharge on the basis of the material collected during the investigation.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by an accused challenging an order of the Special Judge, Indore, framing charges under Sections 69 and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The petitioner contended that the trial court ought to have first decided his protest petition challenging the investigation and cognizance before proceeding to frame charges.
The prosecution case arose from an FIR lodged by a woman alleging that the accused induced her into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage and later refused to marry her. Following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 69 of the BNS. The petitioner subsequently filed a protest petition alleging a biased investigation and fabrication of evidence, but the trial court proceeded to frame charges under Sections 69 and 296 BNS.
Rejecting the challenge, the High Court explained that the concept of a protest petition is primarily applicable where the investigating agency files a closure report and the Magistrate proposes to accept it, requiring the informant to be heard before proceedings are dropped. In contrast, when the police file a positive chargesheet, the accused cannot demand adjudication of a protest petition before the stage of framing charges. The Court held that the grounds raised in the petition were, in substance, arguments seeking discharge, which stood impliedly rejected once the trial court found sufficient material to frame charges.
Also Read Delhi HC Restrains Sale of Counterfeit ‘Beauty of Joseon’ Products; Orders Amazon to Delist Listings
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s objection to the framing of an additional charge under Section 296 BNS, observing that a trial court is not confined to the penal provisions mentioned in the FIR or chargesheet. If the material collected during investigation discloses commission of another offence, the court is competent to frame an appropriate additional charge. Since the charge-sheet and witness statements contained allegations of the accused using obscene words in a public place, the trial court was justified in invoking Section 296 BNS.
Holding that the trial court had considered the defence submissions, correctly evaluated the material on record, and found a prima facie case, the High Court found no jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity warranting interference. It accordingly dismissed the revision petition and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
