3
Crl.P. No. 225 of 2023
the police report, all the documents, and the statements of the
witnesses filed by the prosecution available before it in order to
determine whether it has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
matter. If the Court is of the opinion that it is competent to take
cognizance and prima facie reasonable grounds exist for proceeding
with the trial of the accused, only then, charge has to be framed.
Its object and purpose are to enable the Court to initiate judicial
proceedings against an accused. It is a fundamental right of the
accused to know the exact allegation(s) and offence(s) with which
they are charged, in order to defend themselves so as to prevent
prejudice. Upon considering all the material available before it, if
the Court is of the opinion that it lacks jurisdiction and sufficient
material or there exist no grounds for proceeding with the trial of
the accused, it should refrain itself from framing charge, so as to
avoid a purposeless and frivolous prosecution and abuse of
process of the Court.
3.
The Code has granted an inherent jurisdiction by virtue of
sections 249-A and 265-K to the trial courts, as the case may be,
to acquit any or all accused at any stage of the judicial proceedings
for reasons to be recorded, after providing an opportunity of
hearing to the parties. The words “any stage” used in both the
sections include the stages before or after framing of the charge or
after recording of some evidence.1 Such power can only be
exercised where the Court is of the opinion that no charge could be
framed because of lack of jurisdiction; because the material
available before it is insufficient for the purposes of constituting an
offence; that if charge is framed, but the Court considers it to be
groundless and to allow the prosecution to continue with the trial
would amount to an abuse of process; or that in all circumstances,
where there is no probability of conviction of the accused, even
after a full-fledged trial. Thus, if circumstances for exercise of
inherent powers exist, the Court must use such powers at any
stage of the proceedings on its own or upon an application by the
accused, provided that an opportunity of hearing is afforded to the
1
The State v. Raja Abdul Rehman; 2005 SCMR 1544