The Order of framing charge or refusing discharge can be interfered by the High Court under the power of its inherent jurisdiction in Section 482 in the interest of Justice.

The Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, dated 07.05.21, held that “The correct position of the law laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra), thus is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) of Crpc. That apart, this court in above-stated cases has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstances of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its aforestated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system.  This Court, nonetheless, does not recommend complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on record are a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law.”