Madras High Court
Karthikeyan vs State Rep. By on 19 January, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1309 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1309 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.No.17689 of 2019
1.Karthikeyan
2.Jayavel
3.Rani ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Kaveripattinam Police Station
Krishnagiri District
(Crime No.379 of 2016) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 397 read with Sections 401
Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 30.09.2019 rendered by the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.M.P.No.521 of
2019 in S.C.No.80 of 2018 and set aside the order to alter the charge u/s.304B
IPC.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1309 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondent : Mr.K.Madhan, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The respondent police registered the case against the petitioners for the
offence punishable under Section 174 (3) Cr.P.C. Subsequently, after
investigation, charge sheet filed for the offence under Section 306 and 498A
IPC. The Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case
to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court taken the case on file in S.C.No.80 of
2018. During the trial, the respondent police filed petition under Section 216
Cr.P.C.,to alter the charge framed against the accused and that petition was
allowed to frame additional charge u/s.304(B) IPC. Challenging the said order,
the petitioners/accused are before this court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no witnesses
have spoken about the demand of dowry. The case was referred to RDO to
verify whether there is dowry harassment. Though RDO has filed the report, he
has not stated on whose statement and material, he came to the conclusion that
death is due to dowry harassment. Simply he stated that he presumed that some
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1309 of 2019
facts would show that there is dowry harassment, however, it is not established
with any materials or substance. Subsequently, the investigating agency filed
the application for altering the charge framed against the accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
investigating agency invoked Section 216 Cr.P.C to alter the charge. In this
connection, he placed reliance on the decision of Honourable Supreme Court
reported in (2017) 3 SCC 347 [P.Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and another].
In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that “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 available, as provided under Section 216
Cr.P., to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the
Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced.”. Therefore, the order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse and liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that
Revenue Divisinal Officer report clearly reveals that there is dowry demand and
the witnesses also spoken about the father of the victim girl who spoken
regarding demand of dowry. Therefore, the prosecution can very well file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1309 of 2019
petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C. In the interest of justice, if any addition or
omission, prosecution can seek indulgence of the court and in the interest of
justice, the court can consider for addition or alteration of any charge.
Therefore, the decision referred by the learned counsel for the appellant is not
applicable to the present case. It is also stated that the reason for alteration of
the charge is stated in the petition and is found to be reasonable and acceptable
one. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Sessions Judge, Fast Tack
Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, allowed the petition filed by the prosecution under
Section 216 Cr.P.C.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. Admittedly, the case was originally registered under Section 174(3)
Cr.P.C. Subsequently, FIR itself was altered under Sections 498(A) and 306
IPC. After investigation, the prosecution filed charge sheet. The Sessions Judge
also framed the charge for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A
IPC. During the trial, after examining the witnesses, the respondent police filed
an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C.., to alter the charge and the learned
Sessions Judge, spoken about the statement of the witnesses and also RDO
Report. It is also pointed out by the Sessions Judge that prior to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1309 of 2019
investigation of the RDO, all the witnesses in their evidence categorically
stated about the demand of dowry harassment and ill treating, cruelty of the
deceased by the accused. As such, even at the time of filing charge sheet, the
prosecution has not taken cognizance of the offence and even thereafter,
without alteration, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge. Even the
Sessions Judge at the time of framing of charge sheet, has not framed the
charges under Section 304(b) IPC.
7. On a reading of the entire materials, it is clearly seen that subsequent
materials are brought before the court by the investigating agency or any other
parties regarding demand of dowry. But the statement of witnesses have clearly
spoken about the harassment but not the dowry harassment or the death is due
to harassment of dowry.
8. In view of the above reasonings, the order passed by the Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, dated 30.09.2019, in
Crl.M.P.No.521/2019 in S.C.No.80/2018 is set aside. It is for the Sessions
Judge, if found that there are sufficient evidence in the prosecution witnesses
and if the Sessions Judge finds that there are materials to alter the charge in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1309 of 2019
case, the learned Judge can alter the charge and in such case, opportunity
should be given to the petitioners to lead their evidence and also the
prosecution to lead evidence on the charge.
9. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision stands allowed.
The impugned order is set aside with a direction to the trial court to dispose of
the case in S.C.No.80 of 2018 within six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No 19.01.2021
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
nvsri
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Kaveripattinam Police Station
Krishnagiri District
(Crime No.379 of 2016)
2.The learned Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1309 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J
nvsri
Crl.R.C.No.1309 of 2019
19-01-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
