Ram Tej vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12189 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Tej vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 7 November, 2025

Author: Rajeev Singh

Bench: Rajeev Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:70388
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9189 of 2025   
 
   Ram Tej    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Arvind Pratap Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 14
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.      

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application has been filed with the following prayer:-

"To quash the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, Gonda in S.T. No. 1193 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 2023 u/s 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station- Khargoopur, District- Gonda."

3. It is informed by learned A.G.A. that information is already given to the complainant of the present case on 10.10.2025 about the pendency of the present case.

4. Written notice dated 10.10.2025 placed before this court by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

5. Despite service of notice, none appears for the complainant. Therefore, the matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the state.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of written complaint of the complainant, the F.I.R. No. 74 of 2023 u/s 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act was lodged on 14.03.2023. The applicant and three other persons were implicated in the F.I.R. in question. The investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner.

It is further submitted that no alleged incident was taken place, even then, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against Sunil Kumar and the applicant u/s 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act. Thereafter, the trial was proceeded and after recording the statement of P.W.-1, an application was moved by the complainant mentioning the heading that it is u/s 216 Cr.P.C./239 B.N.S.S. and to add Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act in the charge. The said application was allowed by learned trial Court without considering the provision of Section 216 Cr.P.C. in true sense.

Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and Another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 347, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge can be altered by learned trial Court at any stage and there is no right to any party to seek such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right, hence, indulgence of this Court is required.

7. Learned A.G.A. does not contradict the legal verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and Another (supra).

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order as well as the judgement relied by the applicant's counsel, it is evident that as per the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C., the charge can be altered at any stage by the trial Court even before the judgement is pronounced. There is no right to any party to seek such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right. Paragraphs Nos.6, 7, 8 of the judgment P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and Another (supra) are reproduced as under:-

"6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1. Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is now well settled that the power vested in the Court is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right. It may be that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge of the Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in the Court, as provided under Section 216 CrPC to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is an enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the knowledge of the Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need to be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or addition when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

7. We were taken through Sections 221 and 222 CrPC in this context. In the light of the facts involved in this case, we are only concerned with Section 216 CrPC. We, therefore, do not propose to examine the implications of the other provisions to the case on hand. We wish to confine ourselves to the invocation of Section 216 and rest with that. In the light of our conclusion that the power of invocation of Section 216 CrPC is exclusively confined with the Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment, we make it clear that no party, neither de facto complainant nor the accused or for that matter the prosecution has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge, because it is not provided under Section 216 CrPC. If such a course to be adopted by the parties is allowed, then it will be well-nigh impossible for the criminal court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy trial will get jeopardised.

8. In such circumstances, when the application preferred by the appellant itself before the trial court was not maintainable, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to pass an order under Section 216 CrPC. Therefore, there was no question of the said order being revisable under Section 397 CrPC. The whole proceeding, initiated at the instance of the appellant, was not maintainable. Inasmuch as the legal issue had to be necessarily set right, we are obliged to clarify the law as is available under Section 216 CrPC. To that extent, having clarified the legal position, we make it clear that the whole proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant was thoroughly misconceived and vitiated in law and ought not to have been entertained by the trial court. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1, such a course adopted by the appellant and entertained by the court below has unnecessarily provided scope for protraction of the proceedings which ought not to have been allowed by the court below."

9. It is also evident that the controversy in question has already been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, at the time of deciding the application, the judgement of P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and Another (supra) was not placed before the trial Court. Thus, this Court is of the view that the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the trial Court is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and Another (supra).

10. With above observations, the present application is allowed. The order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the trial Court is set aside with direction to the trial Court to pass fresh order on the application moved by the complainant for alteration of charge.

11. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court, forthwith.

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

November 7, 2025

Arpan