Framing of charge
Section 251 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with framing of charge. If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which— (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for t The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which—
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused present either physically or through audio-video electronic means and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
Section 251, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 228 Framing of charge Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-11.pdf 2012-09-13. Crl A 1407/2012. Patnaik/Swatanter Kumar. DATE-CHECK flagged 2007-12-05 incident date (false positive); body is the named 13 Sep 2012 reportable. At charge the court asks only whether there is ground to presume the offence (strong suspicion), not proof; HC exceeded 397/482 in quashing a 306 charge that met CrPC 228. Map crpc 228 + BNSS 251 successor (near-identical 0.9). Do not pad crpc 397/482 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of CrPC 228 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9). The strong-suspicion framing holding carries to BNSS 251.
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court must apply its judicial mind and sift the evidence placed before it by the prosecution for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or rely solely on post-mortem reports to determine the nexus between alleged assault and death. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence but merely a previous statement of the doctor; only the doctor's oral testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence. Whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault can only be determined after recording oral evidence of eye witnesses and the medical officer as an expert witness. The determination of whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) must be made only after evaluation of the entire oral evidence led by both prosecution and defence at the end of the trial, not at the charge-framing stage. If a prima facie case is made out based on the materials placed by the prosecution, even if those materials give rise to strong suspicion, the charge should be framed in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution, and the accused should be given the opportunity to defend against the higher charge at trial.
On this section: Framing of charge - the Court held that judge must apply judicial mind and be satisfied that evidence is sufficient to presume accused committed offence; strong suspicion suffices
-
Tarun Jit Tejpal vs The State of Goa Home Department Home Secretary
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227-228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out whether the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to be applied is whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, not whether ground for conviction has been made out. Even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial. The submissions made by the accused on merits and probable defence are not required to be considered at this stage. The decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab regarding vitiation of trial when complainant and investigating officer are the same applies prospectively only, as held in Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and does not apply to cases where criminal prosecution was initiated prior to the Mohan Lal decision.
On this section: Framing of charge in sessions cases - the court must frame charge if it considers there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence
-
State of Rajasthan vs Kishan Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a High Court is reviewing an order framing charges in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it must not substitute its own opinion regarding the sufficiency of evidence or undertake a meticulous examination of evidence to determine conviction. The court must limit itself to examining whether the allegations, taken as a whole and without detailed scrutiny, prima facie establish the ingredients of an offence. Quashing of charges is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases where allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable, or where basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied. Once allegations are made in the chargesheet which, on their face, establish a prima facie case of the offence charged, the High Court should be disinclined to interfere. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to decide questions of fact or credibility or to marshal evidence to determine guilt or innocence.
On this section: Governs the procedure for framing of charges. Court examined whether the Special Judge properly applied this section in framing charges based on the chargesheet materials.
-
Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of Nct of Delhi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an alleged offence pertains to obscene material in electronic form, the offence falls exclusively under the special provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (specifically Sections 67, 67A, and 67B), and not under the general provisions of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. The IT Act, being a special enactment with specific provisions for electronic records and containing an overriding effect clause (Section 81), prevails over the IPC. Therefore, an accused who has been discharged from prosecution under Section 67 of the IT Act cannot subsequently be prosecuted under Section 292 IPC for the same conduct involving obscene material in electronic form. The principle that special laws prevail over general laws, particularly when both contain non-obstante clauses, mandates that the IT Act provisions apply to electronic records, and the protection and effect of Section 79 (intermediary protection) cannot be ignored or negated.
On this section: Relates to exercise of revisional power of High Court regarding propriety of framing of charge
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the initial stage of criminal proceedings when considering whether to frame charges under Sections 227-228 (or 238-239) CrPC, if material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial, even if the strength of suspicion would not suffice for conviction. The test for prima facie case depends on broad probabilities and total effect of documents and evidence on record, not on conviction-level proof. Documentary evidence showing material discrepancies (such as added digits inflating quantities and values in export documents) that raise grave suspicion against accused is sufficient to frame charges, notwithstanding absence of eyewitness testimony, so long as the ingredients of alleged offences are discernible on the face of the material.
On this section: Discharge in case of offences triable exclusively by Sessions Court - judicial discretion to discharge examined
-
State of Rajasthan vs Fatehkaran Mehdu
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 CrPC, the court is concerned with the allegations taken as a whole whether they constitute an offense, applying the test of whether strong suspicion exists that the accused committed the offense which if put to trial could prove guilt. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC should be exercised with great caution and reluctance at the charge-framing stage, and should only be invoked where the decisions are grossly erroneous, based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored. Where allegations prima facie establish the ingredients of an offense under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 including obtaining valuable things or pecuniary advantages for another person through abuse of public office, and where a conspiracy to commit such acts is alleged with specific factual details, the High Court should not interfere with the charge-framing order by undertaking meticulous examination of evidence inappropriate for that stage. Quashing of charges is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution and should be permitted only in the rarest cases.
On this section: Governs framing of charges by courts. Court examined whether Special Judge properly exercised powers under this section in framing charges based on materials before it.
-
R. S. Mishra vs State of Orissa
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a judicial officer at the charge framing stage under Section 228 Cr.P.C. drops or dilutes a serious charge against an accused, although the explicit statutory requirement to record reasons applies only to discharge orders under Section 227, minimum reasons in nutshell must be recorded to show consideration of material on record, especially when the material contains credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence constituting prima facie case. Failure to do so shows non-application of mind and opens the judicial order to revision. However, corrective observations by High Court to the Administration suggesting performance verification before promotion, while addressing a serious judicial deficiency, do not constitute derogatory remarks that harm judicial independence if they are not cast in disparaging language and are necessary for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. Administrative consequences such as denial of promotion flowing from verified performance deficiency are distinguishable from punitive contempt proceedings and do not violate judicial independence.
On this section: Framing of charge; by necessary implication from Section 227, requires at least minimum reasons in nutshell when charges are dropped or diluted, though not explicitly mandated for framing itself
-
Rakesh Kumar Gudda vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Section 227-228 Cr.P.C., the court is required to determine whether material on record discloses a prima facie case against the accused. For this purpose, even strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charges; the court need not assess whether evidence is sufficient for conviction. The court must examine prosecution evidence to find existence of prima facie case and ingredients of offence without conducting a mini-trial. Contradictions, inconsistencies or improbabilities in evidence should not be weighed heavily unless glaring or obvious. The court must confine itself to documents provided by prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and rival contentions of parties. Absence of material evidence linking accused to alleged offence or unreliability, inherent improbability and contradiction of evidence may be ground for discharge. In conspiracy cases, establishment of motive, recovery of weapon, and circumstantial evidence of association and communication between accused can collectively give rise to strong suspicion sufficient to frame charges, even if individual pieces of evidence may be contested.
On this section: Framing of charge; court must evaluate evidence to find sufficient ground to proceed against accused; prima facie case is sufficient standard
-
Rakesh Kumar Gudda vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is only required to consider whether the material on record, taken on its face value, discloses the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Even strong suspicion against the accused for commission of alleged offence is good enough to frame a charge. The court need not assess whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. A confessional statement made by co-accused to police officer, though inadmissible against the person making it under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, does not vitiate the charge if other oral and circumstantial evidence, including motive, association, and recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure statement under Section 27, prima facie establishes involvement of the accused. Bail on medical grounds should be granted where the accused is suffering from serious medical conditions resistant to treatment and the trial has progressed sufficiently to reduce risk of witness tampering.
On this section: Framing of charges; court must find prima facie case or strong suspicion; need not assess sufficiency for conviction
-
Tuncay Alankus vs C.b.i.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the right to a fair trial includes the right to an interpreter who can accurately translate proceedings in a language understood by the accused, the trial court has discretion to assess whether a request for change of interpreter is warranted based on the actual proceedings, demonstrated prejudice, and interests of justice. The trial court's assessment of interpreter competence based on academic qualifications and the conduct of proceedings is entitled to deference, and a request for change of interpreter cannot be granted merely on the accused's assertion of incompetence without demonstrating actual prejudice or failure of justice. The provisions of Sections 278, 279, and 282 CrPC are mandatory in requiring provision of an interpreter, but do not mandate replacement of an interpreter upon every request by the accused.
On this section: Requires that the charge framed against the accused be explained to him in a language he understands; this is foundational to fair trial rights
-
State Inspector of Police, Repalle Ps vs Pallapati Nissi Kumar Alias Boyaz
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases relating to rape, the victim's evidence is crucial and significant. In the absence of credible testimony from the victim corroborating the allegations of sexual assault, the prosecution cannot prove the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt, even if other circumstantial or medical evidence is available. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and when the victim turns hostile and denies the allegations, the prosecution's case fails for lack of essential evidence.
On this section: Examination of accused by Magistrate; procedure for framing charges
-
Aarif Khan @ Sanu vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 228, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial is ongoing and prosecution witnesses have testified that they were attacked and suffered injuries, the trial court does not act illegally or with perversity in refusing to alter charges from attempted murder and causing hurt to the lesser charge of extortion, particularly when the High Court should exercise judicial restraint and not examine the merits of witness depositions during the revision stage as such examination may influence the course of trial.
On this section: Conversion of charge - petitioners sought to convert charge under Section 384 IPC and send record to Chief Judicial Magistrate; trial court rejected this application
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 251
What have the courts held on Section 251 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (13 Sep 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 228, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 228 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9). The strong-suspicion framing holding carries to BNSS 251. Another 12 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 251 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 251, section 251 BNSS, section 251 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 251 1 b in hindi and bnss 251 and 263. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 13 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (13 Sep 2012).
What should I read with Section 251 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 228 (Framing of charge), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 251 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 251 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 251, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.