Patna High Court
Fuldeo Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 6 February, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59724 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-324 Year-2011 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Fuldeo Mahto Son of Late Manki Mahto Resident of village - Ali Neura,
P.S.- Meenapur, District - Muzaffarpur.
2. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Mahto Son of Sri. Fuldeo Mahto Resident of
village - Ali Neura, P.S.- Meenapur, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Prachi Pallavi, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2025
Heard the parties.
2. That this is an application for quashing the
impugned order order dated 14.05.2024, passed by the Court
of Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Muzaffarpur in
Sessions Trial 656/2013 wherein the learned court has
invoked the powers under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., 1973
has altered the charge, by changing the date of occurrence.
3. The crux of argument as raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the petition under Section
216 of Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated by either of the parties
rather it is for the Court to take notice for the amendment of
charges as and when required and relied upon the legal report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59724 of 2024 dt.06-02-2025
2/4
of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through P.
Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh and Anr. reported on
(2017) 3 SCC 347.
4. In aforesaid context, it would be apposite to
reproduce para nos. 7 and 8 of P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri
Ganesh and Anr. case (supra) which reads as follows:-
"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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59724 of 2024 dt.06-02-2025
3/4
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."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that in view of above settled legal provision the
impugned order which was passed by learned trial court be set
aside as it was initiated on the basis of application moved by
informant.
6. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of
quashing submitted that from the facial perusal of impugned
order, it transpires that only typographical error on FIR qua
occurrence was corrected. It is submitted that date of
occurrence is 16.11.2011 but it was wrongly mentioned as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59724 of 2024 dt.06-02-2025
4/4
19.11.2011
by SHO, Minapur. It is submitted that in fact the
application was required to be moved under Section 362 of
the Cr.P.C. as correction is apparently clerical in nature. It is
further submitted by learned APP that now the record is fixed
for argument and from impugned order it transpires that
witnesses were not recalled for re-examination, therefore, no
prejudice as submitted above caused to the petitioner. It is
submitted that present petition preferred intentionally as to
cause delay in trial.
7. In view of aforesaid, the present petition devoid
of any merits.
8. Accordingly, the present quashing petition stands
dismissed.
9. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial court,
without delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.02.2025
Transmission Date 07.02.2025
