An accused in general cannot produce independent defence evidence or summon external documents at the stage of framing charges or seeking discharge. At that stage, the court is strictly confined to evaluating the police report and prosecution materials to determine whether a prima facie case exists to proceed to trial.
The Statutory Provisions
Both under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the stage of framing charges serves as a judicial filter for the trial but not as a mini trial. The laws mandate that the court examine only “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” before deciding whether to discharge the accused or frame charges:
- Sessions Trials: Covered under Section 227 CrPC and Section 250 BNSS (which also introduces a 60-day window from the date of commitment to file a discharge application).
- Warrant Cases on Police Report: Covered under Section 239 CrPC and Section 262 BNSS, where the Magistrate considers the police report and documents sent under Section 173 CrPC (Section 193 BNSS).
- Warrant Cases on Private Complaint: Covered under Section 245 CrPC and Section 272 BNSS, where discharge is assessed after taking pre-charge prosecution evidence.
In every case, the statutory expression “record of the case“ refers exclusively to the materials produced by the prosecution or investigating agency, not documents brought forward by the defence.
Landmark Precedents Governing the Rule
In a landmark three-judge bench ruling in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [AIR 2005 SC 359],the Supreme Court settled a long-standing legal debate by overruling its earlier decision in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration. In the case the Court held:
- At the stage of framing charges, the trial court can consider only the materials produced by the prosecution.
- Allowing the accused to produce defence documents at this stage would convert the hearing into a “mini-trial,” which is alien to the scheme of criminal procedure.
- An accused cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) as a matter of right to summon defence documents to prove innocence before charges are framed.
Supreme Court Carved Out a Narrow Discretionary Exception
While reaffirming Debendra Nath Padhi case, the Supreme Court in Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy [(2018) 2 SCC 93] carved out a narrow, discretionary exception:
In this case the Court held that although the defence has no independent right to summon documents under Section 91 at the charge stage, the court itself is not debarred from summoning material withheld by the investigating agency , if the court is satisfied that the withheld material is of “sterling quality” and has a crucial bearing on the issue of framing charges in the interest of justice.
High Court Has Power to Quash the Case
In Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar [(2008) 14 SCC 1], the Supreme Court clarified that while a Trial Court cannot look into defence evidence at the discharge stage, a High Court has the power to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) or writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to look into unimpeachable, sterling defence material in rare cases to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Practical Strategies to Get Discharge
The defence arguments at the discharge stage must demonstrate that even if the prosecution’s allegations and charge-sheet documents are taken at face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offense are missing.
If the police seized exculpatory evidence during the investigation (such as CCTV footage or official records) but deliberately omitted it from the final report, the defence can urge the court to exercise its suo motu power under Nitya Dharmananda.
If the accused possesses undeniable public records (such as passport immigration stamps or government orders) that completely dismantle the prosecution’s timeline, the proper remedy is a quashing petition before the High Court rather than a discharge plea before the trial judge.
However, the pleas of alibi, disputed private documents, and defence witnesses require cross-examination and proof, which can only occur after charges are framed and the prosecution closes its evidence.
