The Delhi High Court refused applications by accused persons challenging the framing of charges against them in a high-profile case involving alleged terror funding in Jammu and Kashmir. The bench examined detailed submissions from defence counsel who contended that the evidence collected by the investigating agency was insufficient to prima facie establish the ingredients of the offences, and that the charge-sheet did not disclose a case warranting the continuation of criminal proceedings. The applicants had sought an order quashing the charge-sheet contents and preventing charges from being formally framed by the trial court.
The Court noted that the legal test at the stage of considering a challenge to the framing of charges is not as stringent as in a trial or at the stage of evaluating evidence for conviction. Rather, the Court observed that the appropriate standard is whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material on record such that it justifies the continuation of proceedings and formal framing of charges. After scrutinising the material placed before it, the High Court found that the prosecution had laid out sufficient allegations supported by investigative findings to require formal charges to be framed and tried before the competent court.
In rejecting the pleas, the Court emphasised that matters such as the reliability and weight of evidence are ordinarily to be examined during trial rather than at the stage of charge consideration. The bench underscored the established principle that courts should ordinarily refrain from quashing or disallowing charges where there is credible material suggesting involvement in alleged offences. The Court clarified that even if the case raised complex or serious legal questions, such considerations do not justify interference with the framing of charges where prima facie material exists.
The accused in the case were alleged to have participated in fundraising activities in territory abroad that were purportedly channelled to support unlawful activities in Jammu and Kashmir. The prosecution relied on documentary evidence, financial transaction records, and other investigative material to connect the accused with the alleged terror funding scheme. Defence counsel argued that the transactions and associated events could be interpreted innocuously and did not rise to the level of criminal conduct specified under the relevant provisions invoked. The High Court, however, held that such contentions about alternative interpretations of the evidence are matters for trial and not for pre-trial quashing of charges.
While the Court acknowledged that the allegations were serious and the case involved sensitive national security issues, it maintained that the procedural threshold for framing charges is relatively low and primarily concerned with ensuring that the accused are not put to trial without adequate prima facie material. The bench indicated that the presence of such material requires the trial court to proceed with formal framing of charges and take the matter forward in accordance with law.
The decision effectively upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings in the terror funding case and paved the way for the trial court to formally frame charges under the relevant statutes. The High Court’s order emphasises judicial restraint in pre-trial scrutiny of evidence and affirms that detailed assessment of evidence is generally reserved for trial, while the Court’s role in charge consideration is limited to determining whether there is prima facie material necessitating charges. The accused will now face formal charges and trial in the case, where their guilt or innocence will be finally adjudicated based on evidence led by the prosecution and defence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.