Introduction:

In a firm reaffirmation of procedural discipline and statutory obligation, the Allahabad High Court, through Justice Chawan Prakash, has categorically directed all trial courts across Uttar Pradesh that the framing of charges cannot be deferred merely because an accused has filed a criminal revision, appeal, or writ petition against the rejection of a discharge application, unless there is a specific stay granted by a superior court, the ruling arose from a criminal revision filed by Avanish Chandra Srivastava, a retired government employee, who challenged an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, rejecting his discharge plea in a case involving serious allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 111, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the FIR dating back to 2004 alleged that upon transfer, the accused failed to hand over charge and official rural development records and prepared forged vouchers and receipts using fabricated signatures, the High Court, while examining the revision, expressed serious concern over a growing and unhealthy practice where trial courts, after rejecting discharge applications, postpone framing of charges either by fixing distant dates or by deferring proceedings merely because the accused has approached the High Court, even when no stay order exists, the Court described this as contrary to settled law and contrary to the statutory mandate of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that the criminal justice process cannot be placed in suspension simply due to pendency of higher court proceedings unless judicially directed, and therefore used the present case as a platform not only to decide the merits of the revision but also to issue statewide procedural directions aimed at preventing unnecessary delays at the trial stage, which ultimately frustrate both victims’ rights and societal interest in timely justice.

Arguments:

On behalf of the revisionist, Senior Advocate V. P. Srivastava argued that the allegations were unfounded and unsupported by reliable evidence, contending that during investigation the allegedly missing files were eventually recovered from the almirah of a co-accused, thereby weakening the prosecution narrative that the revisionist had deliberately withheld records, the defence heavily relied on a departmental inquiry report prepared nearly seventeen years after the filing of the charge sheet, in which the accused was exonerated of misconduct, and it was argued that once the disciplinary authority had found no wrongdoing, continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to harassment and abuse of process of law, it was further submitted that the trial court should have considered this exoneration while deciding the discharge application and that the failure to do so rendered the order legally unsustainable, on the other hand, the State opposed the revision by asserting that at the stage of discharge the court is required to examine only the police report and accompanying documents filed under Section 173 CrPC and that defence material, including subsequent departmental reports, cannot be considered at that preliminary stage, the prosecution emphasized that the FIR and charge sheet disclosed sufficient material to raise a strong suspicion against the accused, which is the only legal threshold required for framing of charges, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, the State further argued that allowing accused persons to stall framing of charges merely by filing revisions would paralyze trial courts and defeat the object of speedy justice, and therefore procedural law must be strictly followed, where discharge having been rejected, the next statutory step is framing of charges unless stayed by a superior court, the High Court was thus required to decide not only whether the revisionist deserved discharge but also whether trial courts could legally postpone framing of charges due to pendency of higher court proceedings without any stay order.

Court’s Judgment:

Dismissing the revision petition, the Allahabad High Court held that a prima facie case clearly existed against the accused and that the Magistrate had rightly rejected the discharge application, the Court clarified that at the stage of considering discharge under the CrPC, the Magistrate is confined to examining the police report and the documents forwarded under Section 173 and cannot consider defence evidence or subsequent developments such as departmental inquiry reports, the Court reiterated that framing of charge does not require proof of guilt but only the existence of strong suspicion, and that it is not necessary at this stage to meticulously weigh whether the evidence would ultimately result in conviction, the Bench categorically held that departmental proceedings operate on different standards of proof and serve different objectives, and therefore exoneration in service inquiry cannot automatically nullify criminal prosecution, particularly when the inquiry report was prepared long after filing of the charge sheet, more importantly, the Court took judicial notice of a recurring pattern where trial courts, after rejecting discharge pleas, either grant long adjournments for framing charges or defer proceedings on the pretext that revisions or writ petitions are pending before the High Court, and held that this practice has no sanction in law, emphasizing that mere filing of an appeal or revision does not operate as a stay on trial court proceedings, the Court referred to Sections 228 and 240 of the CrPC, holding that once discharge is rejected, framing of charges is not discretionary but mandatory unless a superior court stays the operation of the order, the Court observed that trial courts cannot assume implied stays or act out of over-cautiousness, as such conduct delays justice and encourages procedural misuse, in the present case, despite rejection of discharge in February 2024, no charges had been framed till the time of High Court’s hearing, which the Court found unacceptable, consequently, while dismissing the revision on merits, the High Court issued administrative directions by instructing the Registrar (Compliance) to circulate the judgment to all District Judges across Uttar Pradesh, directing them to ensure that judicial officers strictly adhere to the statutory mandate that charges must be framed immediately after rejection of discharge applications unless there is an express stay order, the Court clarified in unambiguous terms that pendency of revision, appeal, or writ petition does not justify suspension of trial proceedings, and that trial courts must act in accordance with law and not on assumptions of possible interference by higher courts, thereby reinforcing procedural discipline and accountability within the criminal justice system.