Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dilip Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20833) on 1 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:20833]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 622/2023
Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Chunni Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Janta
Colony, Dist. Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Nema Ram S/o Shri Laccha Ram, R/o 22, Society Nagar,
Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
Mr. Narendra Kumar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
01/05/2025
The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated
13.04.2023 passed by the learned Session Judge, Pali in Session
Case No.177/2022 whereby the learned Judge framed additional
charge against the petitioner for offence under Sections 307 IPC
along with other charges for offences under Sections 498A, 406,
323, 328 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent
No.2/complainant submitted a written report before the Mahila
Police Thana, Pali against the petitioner to the effect that marriage
of his daughter Mohni Devi had been solemnized with the
petitioner. Out of their wedlock, two children were born. After
marriage, the petitioner and his family members commenced
[2025:RJ-JD:20833] (2 of 4) [CRLR-622/2023]
subjecting the complainant's daughter to mental and physical
harassment on account of dowry demands. On 21.07.2019, the
petitioner and his family members administered poison to the
complainant's daughter Mohni Devi, however, she survived.
On this report, Police registered FIR No.55/2019. After
investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the present
petitioner for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 328 IPC and
after arguments on charge, the trial court vide order dated
22.02.2022 framed the charges against the petitioners for
offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 328 IPC. Thereafter,
vide order dated 13.04.2023, the trial court framed additional
charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 307 IPC.
Hence, this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide detailed
order dated 22.02.2022, the trial court had already duly framed
the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and
read over and explained the same to the petitioner in accordance
with the procedural requirements. However, after a lapse of more
than one year, the trial court proceeded to frame an additional
charge for offence under Section 307 IPC, which is impermissible
in law, as it violates the principles of finality and res judicata.
Thus, the impugned order passed by the trial court framing
additional charge under Section 307 IPC is per se illegal and
deserves to be quashed and set aside. To buttress his contention,
counsel has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh & Anr. [(2017) SCC
347].
[2025:RJ-JD:20833] (3 of 4) [CRLR-622/2023]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
respondent No.2/complainant have vehemently opposed the
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that
while committing the case, the trial court already took cognizance
against the petitioner for offence under Section, 307 IPC, but due
to oversight the said charge could not be framed. Thus, the
learned trial court has not committed any error in additionally
framing charge under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner,.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order of framing charge as well as the case law.
Pursuant to the order dated 22.02.2022, the learned
Sessions Judge, Pali had duly already framed the charges against
the petitioner for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 328 IPC.
Following the framing of these charges, after a lapse of
approximately one year, the trial court again proceeded to frame
an additional charge against the petitioner for offence under
Section 307 IPC vide impugned order dated 13.04.2023 and
subsequently read over the same to the petitioner.
In the case of P. Kartikalakshmi (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under :
"We were taken through Sections 221 & 222 of the Cr.P.C.
in this context. In the light of the facts involved in this
case, we are only concerned with Section 216 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:20833] (4 of 4) [CRLR-622/2023]
the prosecution has any vested right to seek any
addition or alteration of charge, because it is not
provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. 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
jeopardized."
In view of aforesaid judicial pronouncement, this Court is of
opinion that permitting the addition of charge would jeopardize
the very essence of a speedy trial, therefore, the impugned order
passed by the trial court framing additional charge under Section
307 IPC against the petitioner is per se illegal and deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
Hence, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 13.04.2023, passed by the trial court framing charge for
offence under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner is set aside.
The other charges framed by the trial court vide order dated
22.02.2022 are not interfered with.
Stay application is also decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
99-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
