March 13, Kathmandu – The Supreme Court has indicated the presence of complex legal questions regarding the Attorney General’s decision to amend the charges in cases against National Independent Party Chairperson Ravi Lamichhane, which are being heard in various district courts. Cases involving such complex legal matters must be presented before a full bench comprising three or more justices. A joint bench of Justices Vinod Sharma and Abdul Aziz Muslim concluded that this case indeed raises complicated legal issues.
Two recent decisions by Attorney General Savita Bhandari Baral were challenged through separate writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court by senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi and two others, arguing that the decisions conflict with constitutional and legal provisions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has identified complex legal questions within the case. While the Constitution grants the Attorney General the authority to withdraw cases and the Criminal Procedure Code permits amendments to charge sheets, the court noted ambiguity has emerged because cases involving money laundering cannot be withdrawn.
“A clear interpretation and judicial standpoint have not been established by this Court regarding the amendment of the charge sheet that renders a full claim under a special act non-existent,” the Supreme Court order stated. It further directed that “since this legal question requires adjudication by a full bench, the present writ petitions should be placed before the full bench.”
Ravi Lamichhane and several others face charges related to cooperative fraud at the Chitwan District Court, while cases involving cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering have been filed against them at district courts in Kathmandu, Rupandehi, Kaski, and Parsa. During the trial process, the respective courts reportedly disregarded the Money Laundering Act, 2007 (2064 BS), and the Organized Crime Control Act, 2013 (2070 BS), proceeding to investigate cases and file charge sheets that effectively nullify the existence of these laws, oftentimes without conducting further concrete investigations.
Supplementary charge sheets were also filed, adding allegations of cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering against individuals not employed by cooperative institutions. These amendments to the charges were made under Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 2017 (2074 BS). However, misapplication of this provision led to the amendment of the charge sheet on January 14, 2026 (Poush 30, 2082 BS) by the Attorney General’s Office, purportedly withdrawing even money laundering cases—which under Section 116 of the same code are not allowed to be withdrawn.
