2008 (7) TMI 1094 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate to recall framed charges for non-compliance with Section 207 of CrPC and its impact on charge validity.
2. High Court's power to quash charges based on non-compliance with Sections 207 and 238 of CrPC.

Jurisdiction to Recall Framed Charges:
The appellant, accused No. 5 in a special case, sought directions for document production after charge framing. The Special Judge rejected his application for discharge, citing precedents that once charge is framed, Magistrate lacks power to cancel it. The appellant challenged this in Bombay High Court, which upheld the decision, emphasizing compliance with law and necessity to proceed with trial post charge framing.

High Court's Power to Quash Charges:
Appellant argued that non-compliance with Section 207 vitiated proceedings, invoking Article 21 for fair trial. Referring to legal precedents, appellant contended that delay in trial could violate Article 21. However, the High Court and CBI maintained that trial court cannot recall charge post-framing, as clarified in Debendra Nath Padhi's case. High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC does not extend to re-opening proceedings after charge framing.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that trial court cannot recall framed charges post-charge framing. High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC does not allow re-opening proceedings based on materials produced after charge framing. The judgment emphasized that fair trial principles under Article 21 do not apply post-charge framing.