Framing of charges is the judicial act by which a court formally puts the accused on trial by drawing up the charge in writing after being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused. Under Indian law, framing of charges in sessions cases is governed by Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 251 of the BNSS, 2023).
Legal definition
Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides:
Section 228(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 (b) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame a charge against the accused.
The standard at this stage is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but a prima facie case — whether there is "ground for presuming" that the accused has committed the offence. The court must sift through the material on record but is not required to conduct an elaborate inquiry.
New law equivalent: Under the BNSS, 2023, Section 251 corresponds to Section 228 CrPC. A significant addition under Section 251(1)(b) BNSS is a timeline — charges should ordinarily be framed within sixty days from the date of the first hearing on charge.
How courts have interpreted this term
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4]
The Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court must apply its judicial mind to the material before it and consider whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. The court is not required to evaluate the evidence as if conducting a trial — a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming guilt is sufficient.
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39]
The Supreme Court clarified the standard for framing charges. The Court held that at the stage of Section 228, the judge is not required to sift the evidence meticulously as at the trial stage. If the evidence on record, taken at its face value, discloses a prima facie case, charges must be framed. The judge cannot act as a miniature trial court at this stage.
Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam [(2020)]
The Supreme Court emphasised that while framing charges, the court need not record detailed reasons. The court is only required to satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding — not that the prosecution has proved its case. Detailed reasoning at this stage may prejudice the trial.
Why this matters
The framing of charges is a critical watershed moment in any criminal proceeding. It marks the formal commencement of the trial and determines the specific offences for which the accused must answer. Before charges are framed, the accused stands merely as a person against whom allegations have been made; after framing, they become a person who must defend themselves in a formal trial.
For practitioners, the pre-charge hearing is the most strategic opportunity to secure a discharge. Once charges are framed, the accused must endure the full rigour of a trial. The defence must focus its arguments at this stage on demonstrating that the prosecution material, even taken at face value, does not disclose a prima facie case. Conversely, the prosecution must ensure that its material is sufficient to cross the relatively low threshold of "ground for presuming" guilt.
The sixty-day timeline introduced under Section 251 BNSS is a significant reform aimed at addressing delays in criminal proceedings. Under the old CrPC, there was no statutory timeline for framing charges, leading to cases where accused persons languished for years without charges being framed. The new timeline, while directory rather than mandatory, signals legislative intent to expedite the process.
Related terms
Parent concept:
Opposite:
Related procedures:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
What is the standard of proof required for framing charges?
The standard is prima facie — whether there is "ground for presuming" that the accused committed the offence. This is significantly lower than the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required for conviction. The court need not weigh the evidence in detail; a strong suspicion supported by material on record suffices.
Can framing of charges be challenged?
Yes. If charges are framed, the accused may challenge the order by filing a revision petition before the High Court under Section 397 CrPC (Section 442 BNSS). The accused may also invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to quash the charges in exceptional cases.
Is the court required to give detailed reasons while framing charges?
No. The Supreme Court has held that detailed reasons need not be recorded at the charge-framing stage. In fact, recording elaborate reasons may prejudice the trial. A brief order indicating satisfaction that a prima facie case exists is sufficient.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.