K. RAVI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 700, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 700 : 2024 INSC 642
K. Ravi 
v. 
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2024)
29 August 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the right of the accused to file a fresh application 
u/s.216 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by 
the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge 
u/s.227 Cr.P.C. has already been dismissed; and as regards the 
maintainability of the revision application u/s.397 Cr.P.C. against 
the order dismissing application seeking modification of charge 
framed which would be an interlocutory order.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of 
charge – s.227 – Discharge – On facts, in a murder trial, 
accused filed application u/s.227 seeking discharge from the 
case – Dismissal of application by the Sessions court as well 
as the High Court – Accused then filed application u/s.216 
seeking alteration of the charge – Application dismissed by 
the Sessions court, however, revision application allowed 
by the High Court – Legality of:
Held: s. 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh 
application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the 
court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge 
u/s.227 has already been dismissed – Order dismissing application 
seeking modification of charge would be an interlocutory order 
and in view of the express bar contained in
s.397(2), the revision 
application itself is not maintainable – Accused miserably failed 
to get himself discharged from the case in the first round of 
litigation, when he had filed the application u/s.227, still however 
he filed another vexatious application seeking modification of 
charge u/s.216 to derail the criminal proceedings – High Court, 
on an absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard 
* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
701
K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
of the settled legal position, allowed the revision application filed 
by the accused, though legally untenable, and set aside the 
charge framed by the Sessions Court against the accused – Said 
order being ex facie illegal, untenable and dehors the material 
on record, is set aside – Order passed by the Sessions Court is 
restored – Accused having sufficiently derailed the proceedings 
by filing frivolous and untenable applications one after the other 
misusing the process of law, cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by 
the accused to the appellant – s.397 – Costs. [Paras 8, 10-13]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of 
charge – Accused filing a fresh application u/s.216 for 
alteration of charge, when his application seeking discharge 
u/s.227 has already been dismissed – Correctness:
Held: s.216 is an enabling provision which enables the court 
to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is 
pronounced, and if any alternation or addition to a charge is made, 
the court has to follow the procedure as contained therein – s.216 
does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application 
seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, 
more particularly when his application seeking discharge u/s.227 
has already been dismissed – Unfortunately, such applications 
are being filed in the trial courts sometimes in ignorance of 
law and sometimes deliberately to delay
the proceedings –  
Once such applications though untenable are filed, the trial courts 
have no alternative but to decide them, and then again such 
orders would be challenged before the higher courts, and the 
whole criminal trial would get derailed – Such practice is highly 
deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the 
courts – Judicial deprecation. [Para 11]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Calling for records 
to exercise powers of revision – Scope of s.397:
Held: Scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction u/s.397 
is extremely limited – Apart from the fact that s.397(2) prohibits 
the Court from exercising the powers of revision, even the powers 
u/s.397(1) thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only 
where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there 
is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded 
by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is 
ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely
702
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
by framing the charge – Court exercising revisional jurisdiction 
u/s.397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the 
order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with 
the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application for 
modification of the charge u/s.216 CrPC, which order otherwise 
would fall in the category of an interlocutory order. [Para 10]
Case Law Cited
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another [2012] 7 SCR 988 : 
(2012) 9 SCC 460 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Application u/s.216 Cr.P.C.; Framing of charge by the court; 
Maintainability of the revision application u/s.397 Cr.P.C.; 
Modification of charge; Interlocutory order; Alteration of charge; 
Discharge; Vexatious application; Extraneous consideration; 
Frivolous and untenable applications; Enabling provision; Ignorance 
of law; Practice highly deplorable; Powers of Revision; Revisional 
Jurisdiction.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3598 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in CRLRC No. 1268 of 2016
Appearances for Parties
V. Elanchezhiyan, V. Rama Krishnan, Padhmanabha Raja K.R., 
Shafik Ahmed, Nasim Anwar, Ms. Anju, Manoj Kumar, Ms. Anupama 
Singh, Ms. Parul Priya, Tushar Pahwa, Ms. Apsana Khatoon, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth
Bhatnagar, Sr. Advs., Sabarish 
Subramanian, C. Kranthi Kumar, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Naman 
Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Sarathraj B, Ms. Shakun Sharma, Ms. Pracheta 
Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz, Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Ms. 
Aarjoo Rawat, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
703
K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The instant appeal filed by the Appellant – Defacto Complainant 
arises out of an extremely unusual and untenable Judgment and 
Order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras in Criminal Revision being Crl.R.C. No.1268 of 2016 filed by 
the Respondent No. 2 (originally Accused No. 2) under Section 397 
and 401 of Cr.P.C., whereby the High Court while allowing the said 
Revision Application set aside the order dated 18.10.2016 passed 
by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri framing charge in 
SC No.90 of 2015, and directed the further investigation in Crime 
No.2074 of 2009 under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
3.	
The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that an FIR being 
No. 2074 of 2009 came to be registered on 24.11.2009 at Police 
Station, Dharmapuri against 9 accused including the Respondent 
No. 2 (A-2) for the offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 
and 302 of IPC. The said FIR was registered at the instance of the 
defacto complainant ADMK Ravi i.e., the present appellant. It was 
alleged inter alia in the said FIR that on 24.11.2009, the accused 
no. 1 S.R. Vetrivel, AIADMK Town Secretary along with his group 
prevented the complainant and his group from filing the nomination 
at AIADMK Party Office at Dharmapuri and also started threatening 
the complainant. The Accused
Vetrivel thereafter shouted to bring 
weapons that were kept in a vehicle parked at the ground floor of 
the Dharmapuri District Party Office and the Accused Baskar son 
of Mathikonpalayam Pachiyappan (the Respondent No. 2 herein) 
brought the weapons kept in his Tata Safari White Car. Thereafter, 
the accused Vetrivel holding the knife ran towards the brother of the 
complainant i.e. Veeramani, who was running towards the complainant. 
Thereafter the accused Mathikonpalayam Annadurai caught hold of 
Veeramani and the accused Vetrivel stabbed Veeramani with knife 
on his chest and the accused Baskar (R-2) gave a blow on the head 
of Veeramani repeatedly and also beat the complainant with the 
iron pipes. The other accused also assaulted the complainant and 
others as narrated in the said FIR. Thereafter the complainant and
704
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
his brother Veeramani were taken to the Dharmapuri government 
hospital by some people for treatment, where his brother Veeramani 
expired during the course of treatment. 
4.	
The Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient evidence against 
all the accused submitted chargesheet implicating 31 accused before 
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court 
of Sessions for trial. 
5.	
The Respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Sessions 
Court seeking his discharge from the case under Section 227 of 
Cr.P.C. in the said Sessions case, which came to be dismissed by 
the Sessions Court vide the order dated 01.07.2016. The said order 
came to be challenged by the Respondent No. 2 before the High 
Court by filing a Revision Application being No. Crl.R.C. No. 953 of 
2016. The said Revision Application came to be dismissed by the 
High Court vide the order dated 05.08.2016 specifically holding that 
there were sufficient incriminating materials available against the 
Respondent No.2 to frame the charge and that the Sessions Court 
had rightly dismissed the application filed by the Respondent No. 2 
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
6.	
It appears that thereafter the Sessions Court framed charge against 
all the accused. The Respondent No. 2 (A-2) was charged for the 
offence under Section 302 r/w 149, 147, 148 and 324 of IPC. The 
Respondent No.2 along with other accused again filed a vexatious
application being CRMP No. 1679/2016 in SC No. 90/2015, under 
Section 216 of Cr.P.C seeking alteration of the charge on the ground 
that the accused no. 2 and others were not present at the scene of 
offence on 24.11.2009. The said application came to be dismissed 
by the Sessions Court vide the order dated 18.10.2016 specifically 
observing that there were statements of eye witnesses available 
on record to show that the Respondent No.2 (A-2) was present at 
the scene of occurrence. From the statements of LW-1 Ravi, LW-2 
Govindam, LW-3 Tamilarasu, LW-4 Dhandapani and LW-5 Andiappan 
the role of the accused no. 1 and 2 was also revealed. It was also 
observed that the charge was framed against all the accused based 
on material on record available with the Court, and that as per the 
settled legal position the charge could be altered at any stage of 
the proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order the Respondent
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
705
K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
No.2 preferred the Revisional Application being Crl.R.C. No.1268 of 
2016, wherein the High Court passed the impugned order as stated 
hereinabove.
7.	
From the above conspectus of events, it clearly transpires that the 
Respondent No.2 after having failed to get himself discharged from 
the Sessions Court as well as from the High Court in the first round 
of litigation, filed another vexatious application before the Sessions 
Court under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., after the framing of charge by the 
Sessions Court, for modification of the charge. The Sessions Court 
having dismissed the said application, the Respondent No.2 preferred 
the Revisional Application before the High Court under Section 397 
and 401 of Cr.P.C. The High Court in its unusual impugned order, 
discharged the Respondent No. 2 (A-2) from the charges levelled 
against him, though his earlier application seeking discharge was 
already dismissed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the 
High Court and that position had attained finality. The High Court 
utterly failed to realise that the order impugned against it was the 
order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application of the 
Respondent No. 2 seeking modification of the charge framed against 
him under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., and the said order was an order 
of interlocutory in nature.
8.	
It is pertinent to note that the order dismissing application seeking 
modification of charge
would be an interlocutory order and in view of 
the express bar contained in sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C., 
the Revision Application itself was not maintainable.
9.	
At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the observations made 
by this Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another,1 
explaining the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. It was held that -
“12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the 
power to call for and examine the records of an inferior 
court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality 
and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a 
case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent 
defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be 
a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for 
1	
[2012] 7 SCR 988 : (2012) 9 SCC 460
706
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of 
it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to 
be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various 
judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional 
jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under 
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance 
with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based 
on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial 
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are 
not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each 
case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13.  Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional 
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and 
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt 
restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or 
interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that 
the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not 
lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with 
the question as to whether the charge has been framed 
properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it 
may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional 
jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the 
categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much 
advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.”
10.	 Thus, the scope of interference and exercise of
jurisdiction under 
Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that 
sub-section 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the 
powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof 
should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under 
challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the 
provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based 
on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion 
is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. The 
Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should 
be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the 
charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the 
Trial Court dismissing the application for modification of the charge 
under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the 
category of an interlocutory order.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
707
K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
11.	 It is trite to say that Section 216 is an enabling provision which 
enables the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before 
judgment is pronounced, and if any alternation or addition to a 
charge is made, the court has to follow the procedure as contained 
therein. Section 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a 
fresh application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by 
the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge 
under Section 227 has already been dismissed. Unfortunately, such 
applications are being filed in the trial courts sometimes in ignorance 
of law and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings. Once 
such applications though untenable are filed, the trial courts have no 
alternative but to decide them, and then again such orders would be 
challenged before the higher courts, and the whole criminal trial would 
get derailed. Suffice it to say that such practice is highly deplorable, 
and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts.
12.	 So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, as stated here 
in above the Respondent No.2 had miserably failed to get himself 
discharged from the case in the first round of litigation, when he 
had filed the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C, still however he 
filed another vexatious application seeking modification of charge 
under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to derail the criminal
proceedings. 
The said Application also having been dismissed by the Sessions 
Court, the order was challenged before the High Court by filing 
Revision Application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The High Court, on 
an absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard of 
the settled legal position, allowed the Revision Application filed by 
the Respondent No. 2, though legally untenable, and set aside the 
charge framed by the Sessions Court against the Respondent No. 
2. The said order being ex facie illegal, untenable and dehors the 
material on record, the same deserves to be set aside. 
13.	 In that view of the matter, impugned order is set aside. The order 
passed by the Sessions Court is restored. The Respondent no. 2 
(A-2) having sufficiently derailed the proceedings by filing frivolous 
and untenable applications one after the other misusing the process 
of law, the present Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be 
paid by the Respondent No. 2 to the Appellant within two weeks. 
The Respondent No. 2 shall first deposit the cost in the office of this 
Court, which shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the Appellant.
708
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
14.	 The Sessions Court is directed to proceed further with the trial against 
all the accused including the Respondent No. 2 (A-2) in accordance 
with law and as expeditiously as possible. All the parties are directed 
to cooperate the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as 
possible. It is further directed that non-cooperation of any of the 
accused in proceeding with the trial shall entail cancellation of their 
bail. 
15.	 The Appeal stands allowed, with cost as directed. The office shall 
ensure compliance of the order of payment of cost by the Respondent 
No. 2, and report to the Court in case of non-compliance.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain