[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Rajiv Singh @ Kumar Rajiv Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:36415)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3435 of 2023
------
1. Rajiv Singh @ Kumar Rajiv Singh, Aged about 53 years,
2. Sujit Singh @ Kumar Sujit Singh @ Anku Singh, Aged about 51
years,
3. Ranjit Singh @ Kumar Ranjit Singh @ Ranu, Aged about 39 years,
All are Sons of Sri Awadhesh Singh @ Awadhesh Prasad
Singh, Resident of Road No.-9, Latma Road, Singhmore, Near Sun
Bright School, P.O.- Singhmore, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. (Through V.C.)
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 25.08.2023
passed in S.T. No.661 of 2018 and S.T. No.331 of 2019 passed by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner XXI, Ranchi whereby and where
under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XXI, Ranchi has
altered the charge by adding the charge under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, when the trial was going on for the charges framed earlier
punishable under Section 498 A, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2025:JHHC:36415)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the exercise of
the jurisdiction under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. to alter the charge has
been made after the petition for the same was filed by the informant/
prosecution; even though there is no right of any party to seek for
addition or alteration of charge as a matter of right and in this respect,
learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri
Ganesh & Another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 347 in paragraph-6 of
which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated this general
principle of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasvinder Saini &
Others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7
SCC 256 and submits that in paragraph-11 thereof the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law by observing
that there is no doubt about the competence of the court to add or alter
a charge at any time before the judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. Karimullah Osan Khan reported in (2014) 11 SCC 538
in paragraph-16 of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
relied upon the judgment of the Privy Counsel in the case of Thakur
Shah vs. King Emperor reported in AIR 1943 PC 192 wherein it was
observed that the alteration or addition is always, of course, subject to
(2025:JHHC:36415)
the limitation that no course should be taken by reason of which the
accused may be prejudiced either because he is not fully aware of the
charge made or is not given a full opportunity of meeting it and putting
forward any defence open to him on the charge finally preferred.
6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
in course of trial, four witnesses have been examined who have
corroborated their respective statements recorded by the Investigating
Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the
materials collected during the investigation of the case show that the
death of the deceased was suicidal and not homicidal. Hence, there is
no rhyme or reason to frame any charge for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XXI, Ranchi has passed the
order for alteration of charge in a cryptic manner. Hence, it is submitted
that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
7. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits as has
been observed in para-6 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh & Another
(supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in categorical
terms observed that 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. So, in view
of this settled principle of law no elaborate discussion is required to be
(2025:JHHC:36415)
made by the trial court to alter a charge. Hence, on this score the
impugned order cannot be held to be vitiated. It is next submitted that it
is a settled principle of law that the court, at any time, may alter a
charge suo moto. Merely because an application was filed and
subsequent to that a suo moto power of the Court was exercised; the
same cannot vitiate the order of altering the charge. It is next submitted
that the P.W.2 has categorically stated about the commission of the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and on
being satisfied from the materials in the record that a charge for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is
required to be added, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner
XXI, Ranchi having added the same, thereby no illegality has been
committed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XXI,
Ranchi warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, it is
submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the
charge can be altered at any stage by the trial court suo moto but the
rider is that when the charge is altered, the court must bring it to the
notice of the accused and explain it to him.
9. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Kantilal Chandulal Mehta vs.
(2025:JHHC:36415)
State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (1969) 3 SCC 166 that
Code of Criminal Procedure gives ample power to the court to alter a
charge provided that the accused has to face charge of a new offence.
10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, true it is that the
informant/prosecution filed a petition under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C.
making a prayer for alteration of the charge but the perusal of the
impugned order reveals that after considering the submissions made at
the Bar i.e, the prayer of the informant/prosecution and the objection of
the defence counsel, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XXI,
Ranchi has applied its own independent mind and upon perusal of the
record as it appeared to the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner
XXI, Ranchi that there are sufficient materials in the record including
the deposition of the witnesses more particularly that of P.W.2 for
adding the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
alternatively, hence, he has passed the orders for alteration of the
charge. The altered charge has already been explained to the accused
persons and after that also two witnesses have been examined.
11. Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner XXI, Ranchi having exercised the power vested upon
him under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. suo moto basing upon the materials
available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the
same is not vitiated merely because a petition was filed by the
informant/ prosecution urging upon the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner XXI, Ranchi to exercise such power.
(2025:JHHC:36415)
12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned in
exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
13. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 04th of December, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 10/12/2025
