Allahabad High Court
Kunwarpal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 20 March, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43398 of 2022
Applicant :- Kunwarpal And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh,Sachin Malik
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Sachin Malik, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 in S.T. No. 1122 of 2019 (State Vs. Kunwarpal and others) arising out of Case No. 2443 of 2017, under Sections 328/149, 427/149 I.P.C., Police Station- Shahpur, District- Muzaffarnagar.
Initially an F.I.R. was lodged on 29.10.2016 by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants and four others alleging that on 12.10.2016 when opposite party no.2 was in his agricultural fields, applicants along with others came and put some poisonous substance in the crops due to which the crops got destroyed. After investigation, police submitted final report before the court concerned and against the final report opposite party no.2 filed a protest petition on 12.4.2017, the protest petition was treated as compliant and opposite party no.2 and other witnesses were examined under 200 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to Court of Session and the trial court vide order dated 24.11.2022 framed charges under Sections 328/149 and 427/149 I.P.C. against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the alleged allegations made against the applicants are false and F.I.R. has been lodged due to earlier enmity between the parties. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court has illegally amended the charge only on the statement of P.W.1- complainant without waiting the other witnesses of fact, who are to be examined, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as summoning order and submitted that in the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., P.W. 1 has also supported the prosecution version, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 cannot be set aside.
The scope of powers of the court to alter or add any charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is very wide in nature and it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in regard to such matters which may be exercised at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The rights of the parties in regard to the same would be extremely limited and no addition or alteration or objection with regard thereto, can be raised as a matter of right. The power to alter the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is always vested in the Court to be exercised at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The section is in the nature of an enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies when the relevant facts with regard thereto are brought to its notice. In case where a situation so demands if it comes to the knowledge of the Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, the Court may do so on its own or upon an application of the parties. It may be reiterated that the test to be applied in this regard is that it must be founded on material available on record and the principle that has to be kept in mind is that the charge so framed by the Magistrate is in accord with materials produced before him or the subsequent evidence which comes on record.
The contention relating to the defence of the accused which seeks to impeach the veracity of the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses would be a question to be seen at the trial and need not be determined at the time of framing of charge. The stage of appreciation of evidence on merit by the court comes up only after the charges have been framed and the trial has commenced. For the purpose of framing of charge the court only needs to prima facie determine that there exists sufficient material for the commencement of trial.
Counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any material error or irregularity in the exercise of power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. so as to persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The application thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.3.2023
Krishna*
