Discharge
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
Section 227, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 250 Discharge 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-2.pdf 2014-01-06. Prasad/Eqbal. DATE-CHECK flagged 1996-05-13 / 2001-05-14 check-period dates (false positive); body is the named 6 Jan 2014 reportable. Discharge under s.227 (and the allied 239/245 standard): the court assumes the prosecution materials to be true and asks only whether a prima facie case is made out; no mini-trial or weighing of defence evidence at the charge stage.
On this section: At the s.227 discharge stage the court assumes the prosecution record to be true and asks only whether a prima facie case exists; no mini-trial (Suresh Rajan).
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Core provision governing discharge of accused at pre-trial stage; requires consideration of record and documents submitted therewith; court must determine if sufficient ground exists for proceeding against accused
-
R. S. Mishra vs State of Orissa
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: Discharge of accused; mandates recording of reasons; provides foundational principle that 'consideration' must be reflected in orders under Section 228
-
Mauvin Godinho vs State Of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The standard for framing charges under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the prima facie standard, where the probative value of evidence on all essential elements of the charge taken as a whole must be sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to such elements or to consider their existence probable. At this stage, the court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh evidence as if conducting a trial. When material on record shows that policy notifications were issued without required Cabinet approval and the sequence of notifications could reasonably suggest an intent to benefit specific entities, sufficient prima facie material exists to frame charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act even if earlier civil litigation addressed the same notifications from a different legal angle.
On this section: Framing of charges. Central provision governing when and on what basis charges should be framed by the court.
-
T. Nagarajan vs State Of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When A Court Frames Charges Under Section 227 Of The Criminal Procedure Code, It Must Apply The Prima Facie Standard, Whereby The Probative Value Of Evidence On All Essential Elements Must Be Sufficient To Induce The Court To Believe In The Existence Of The Facts Pertaining To Those Essential Elements Or Consider Their Existence So Probable That A Prudent Man Ought To Act Upon The Supposition That Those Facts Existed. At This Stage, There Cannot Be A Roving Enquiry Into The Pros And Cons Of The Matter Or Weighing Of Evidence As If Conducting A Trial. Where Material On Record Obligates The Court To Frame Charges And Prima Facie A Case Can Be Made Out Against The Accused, The Court Should Frame Charges Without Conducting A Thorough Examination Of Merits.
On this section: Charge Framing By Court - Established Prima Facie Standard To Be Applied When Framing Charges Against Accused
-
Naveen @ Ajay vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal trial for serious offences including rape and murder cannot be conducted in a hasty manner over 15 days without providing adequate time to the legal aid counsel to prepare the defence. The principle of fair trial, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution, requires that the accused be afforded a real and meaningful opportunity to defend himself through competent counsel with sufficient preparation time. The trial court has a duty to ensure compliance with fair trial principles by granting adequate time to defence counsel, which should normally be a minimum of 7 days but may be more depending on circumstances. Forensic evidence including DNA reports must be properly proved through examination of expert witnesses who prepared the reports, and the accused must be given opportunity to cross-examine such experts. A trial conducted in violation of these principles is void and the conviction and sentence must be set aside with the matter remitted for de novo trial.
On this section: Provisions for framing of charges; Court held that hearing for framing charges must be meaningful and not routine, requiring adequate time for defence counsel preparation
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
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: Discharge - the Court elaborated on the scope of judicial inquiry; judge must sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of finding prima facie case; cannot act as mere post office
-
Tarun Jit Tejpal vs The State of Goa Home Department Home Secretary
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: Discharge of accused in sessions cases - the court must discharge if it considers there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court has power to sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of finding prima facie case.
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Discharge of accused in Sessions Court - Court noted that Sessions Judge can discharge at this stage even if Magistrate had committed the case.
-
The State Rep. by Inspector of Police Q Branch Cid Thoothukudi vs Mariya Anton Vijay
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash FIR/charge sheet should be exercised very sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence, or are absurd and inherently improbable, or where there is an express legal bar to proceedings. At the charge sheet stage, the High Court cannot appreciate factual materials and draw inferences as if deciding an appellate case. The High Court must confine itself to examining whether prima facie case is made out without going into reliability or genuineness of allegations. Factual questions regarding possession of arms, their nature, authorization, and whether they form part of ordinary armament of vessel under Section 45(a) of Arms Act can only be decided through full trial on merits with evidence from both parties, not at the threshold stage of charge sheet examination. The burden of proving exemption under Section 45(a) lies on the accused person, and such exemption applies only to arms forming part of ordinary armament or equipment of the vessel, not to all arms carried on the vessel.
On this section: Section 482 provides inherent powers to High Court to quash proceedings. The Court held that such powers should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases. Section 227-228 relate to framing of charges by trial court. The Court distinguished between powers exercisable at charge sheet stage versus appellate stage.
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
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 - principles applied to determine sufficiency of ground for proceeding
-
B. Jagdish vs State of A. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of taking cognizance or quashing of charges in medical negligence cases, if the materials brought on record by the complainant, taken at face value and assumed to be wholly correct, disclose the existence of an offense or a prima facie case, the court cannot quash the proceedings merely because there are conflicting expert opinions or because the accused produces defense materials. The determination of which opinion ultimately prevails is a matter for the trial court upon consideration of all evidence. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash is limited and should be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases with unimpeachable evidence. A person professing to be a specialist must possess the requisite specialized expertise; lacking such expertise amounts to professional negligence. Criminal liability for medical negligence requires gross or reckless negligence, not mere error in diagnosis or judgment, distinguishing it from civil liability.
On this section: Framing of charge by trial court—discussed in context of when accused has right to produce material; held accused cannot produce defense material at this stage
-
Rakesh Kumar Gudda vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
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: Discharge of accused if trial court finds no sufficient ground for proceeding; object is to filter out cases with no prima facie evidence and curtail frivolous prosecutions at early stage
-
Vikrant Rana @ Shankar vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227, 239, and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court is required to evaluate the material presented by the investigating agency only to ascertain whether the facts emerging from the record, if taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence alleged. The trial court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material or to consider the probable defence of the accused. The standard of evaluation is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists, and the adequacy and sufficiency of evidence is not to be considered at this stage. The veracity of evidence can only be evaluated during the trial.
On this section: Charge framing by magistrate - establishes legal framework for evaluation of evidence at charge framing stage
-
Neetu Dixit @ Nisha vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under criminal procedure, the court is required only to evaluate whether there exists a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed based on the material on record, accepting the prosecution's materials as true at that stage. Material discrepancies in evidence, allegations of planted evidence, and procedural irregularities are matters exclusively within the domain of trial and cannot be adjudicated at the charge-framing stage by way of criminal revision. The distinction between prima facie case (sufficient for charge-framing) and proof beyond reasonable doubt (required for conviction) is fundamental to criminal procedure, and the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the trial court on evidentiary matters without trial.
On this section: Discharge application; petitioner filed discharge application before trial court which was rejected
-
Abbal Singh vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Questions regarding the nature, severity, and medical implications of injuries sustained by a victim cannot be determined at the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC. Such questions must be reserved for determination at the trial stage where full evidence can be examined and tested. At the discharge stage, if medico-legal evidence prima facie establishes that an injury exists and has been opined to be grievous, the discharge application should be rejected and the case should proceed to trial.
On this section: Discharge of accused when no prima facie case - The core issue of this revision. The court held that questions regarding injury severity cannot be determined at discharge stage and must be reserved for trial.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The appellant had approached the High Court through a Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 2018, challenging the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Special Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad, in PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016. The Special Judge had rejected the discharge application filed by the appellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2]( page-1-0) seeking discharge from the case registered under the PMLA. The appellant had been implicated based on allegations of money laundering arising out of scheduled offences under the PMLA. - 4. The case against the appellant arose from an alleged economic offence …
-
… They allegedly trespassed into the forest area and other areas of Bellary District: carried out illegal mining and transported it. Though, second accused (A2) to seventh accused(A7) filed applications under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC', for short) seeking discharge, by Order dated 08.10.2015, the Trial Court discharged the second accused and the appellant. It is this Order which has been set aside by the High Court by the impugned Order. APPLICATION BY THE …
-
… The appellant claims that there was no material for registering the criminal case neither investigating nor submitting the final report against him. At this stage, the appellant filed application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as "CrPC") seeking his discharge from the case for the aforesaid offences. The application was dismissed by the trial Judge/Special Judge who ordered for framing of charges against him for the aforesaid offences under Order dated 2nd January, 2018 …
Questions about Section 227
What have the courts held on Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan (06 Jan 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: At the s.227 discharge stage the court assumes the prosecution record to be true and asks only whether a prima facie case exists; no mini-trial (Suresh Rajan). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 12 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 227, section 227 CRPC, section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan (06 Jan 2014).
What should I read with Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 250 (Discharge), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 227, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.