In a strongly worded order, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside charges framed against a 62-year-old Ernakulam resident accused of running an illegal money lending business, observing that the trial court had used a "printed format" to frame charges - an approach Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan termed unacceptable in judicial practice. The bench allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Somasundaram, who was accused under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958.
Background
The case dates back to Crime No. 884/2011 registered at the Ernakulam Town North Police Station. The prosecution alleged that Somasundaram operated "SARO Finance Company" without a valid licence, charging exorbitant interest from customers and securing cheques and signed stamp papers as collateral.
Initially, the police filed charges only under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. However, after further inquiry, they submitted a supplementary charge sheet adding the cheating offence under Section 420 IPC.
Somasundaram had earlier approached the High Court in Crl.M.C. No. 8883/2019, where the bench permitted him to file a discharge petition without being physically present. Interestingly, the second accused in the case had already been discharged. But by the time Somasundaram could act, the lower court had already framed charges, closing that route. This led him to challenge the framing order itself through Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 265 of 2025.
Court's Observations
Justice Kunhikrishnan didn't mince words in his criticism of the trial court. Upon reviewing the case file, he expressed shock at discovering that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, had framed charges using a pre-printed format, merely filling in names and case details.
“I am surprised to see such a charge framed by a court of law. This is not the manner in which a charge is to be framed,” the judge observed in his order.
He went on to remind that under Section 240(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and Section 263(1) of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, charges must be framed in writing - not merely filled into a pre-made form.
While the law does prescribe a form for reference, the judge stressed that courts cannot convert that form into a template to be mechanically reused.
"The court cannot prepare a format of charge and fill the details of each case in the vacant space of the format," the bench noted, adding that such shortcuts "undermine the seriousness of the judicial process."
Decision
Finding merit in the petitioner's argument, the High Court set aside the order dated December 9, 2019, through which the charges were originally framed.
Justice Kunhikrishnan granted Somasundaram three weeks to file a fresh discharge petition before the jurisdictional court. The judge also directed the Magistrate to consider that petition without insisting on the petitioner’s presence and to dispose of it within four months of receipt.
"The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to seek discharge before any fresh charge is framed," the order concluded.
With that, the court effectively reopened the case for a fair re-evaluation, reaffirming that even procedural lapses - however minor they may appear - cannot be ignored when they affect the sanctity of due process.
Case Title: Somasundaram v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 265 of 2025
Date of Order: 08 October 2025