Telangana High Court
Keesara Laxmi , Lakshmi And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana on 27 June, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1631 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused
Nos.2, 4 to 8 seeking to quash the impugned Order dated
15.02.2022 in Criminal Revision Petition No.177 of 2018
passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad (for short 'the learned Sessions Judge'),
confirming the Orders dated 28.03.2018 in Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.384 of 2018 in C.C.No.216 of 2011
passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the learned
trial Court') wherein the application filed by the prosecution
under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short 'Cr.P.C.') was allowed adding the offence under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
02. Heard Sri Srinivas Dammalapati, learned Senior
Counsel representing Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.
Perused the record.
03. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that both the Courts had not satisfied
with regard to the required ingredients of any of the alleged
offences. Further, both the Courts had failed to appreciate
the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper manner
and passed the impugned Orders. The certificate of the
Doctor marked as Ex.P7 do not disclose any injury, which
may lead to the death of the victim. Both the Courts
miserably failed to consider the fact that the entire trial was
completed and the prosecution cannot file an application
under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. The power conferred upon the
Court under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. is discretionary and
exclusive, and shall not be invoked at the instance of either
party by way of an application. Hence, while seeking for
quashment of the impugned Order, he relied upon a decision
of the Honourable Supreme Court in P.Kartikalakshmi v. Sri
Ganesh and another 1 wherein at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it
was held that:
"6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective
parties, we find force in the submission of learned senior
counsel for respondent no.1. Section 216 Cr.P.C.
(2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 347
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 Cr.P.C. 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 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 & 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 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."
04. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent contended that
both the Courts have passed their respective orders after
hearing both sides and considering the material available on
record, and therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by
both the Courts needs no interference of this Court as there is
no illegality or irregularity in the said orders and prayed to
dismiss this Criminal Petition.
05. Having regard to the submissions made on either
side and on perusal of the record, it is apparent on the face of
the record that the main Calendar Case pertains to the year
2011. The learned trial Court had duly framed charges, which
were denied by the accused. Subsequently, the learned trial
Court concluded the trial and recorded the statements of the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At this advanced stage
of the proceedings, the prosecution filed an application under
Section 216 of Cr.P.C., seeking alteration of the charges by
invoking additional penal provisions under Sections 307 and
493 of the IPC.
06. In the context of the present case, it is relevant to
extract Section 216 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
"216. Court may alter charge.
(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any
time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and
explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that
proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in
the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in
his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the
case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such
alteration or addition has been made, proceed with
the trial as if the altered or added charge has been
the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding
immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the
Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as
aforesaid, the Court may, either direct a new trial or
adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge
is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction
is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with
until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has
been already obtained for a prosecution on the same
facts as those on which the altered or added charge is
founded."
07. A bare reading of the above provision of law
clearly gives an understanding that Section 216 of Cr.P.C.
confers an exclusive and discretionary power upon the Court
to alter, or add, to any charge at any time before the
Judgment is pronounced. This provision does not envisage or
permit either the prosecution or the accused to seek such
alteration or addition by way of an application. The legislative
intent behind this provision is to ensure that the Court alone
retains the authority to amend the charges based on the
evidence brought on record, thereby ensuring that the
accused is made aware of the precise charges to which a
defence must be made. If the power under Section 216
Cr.P.C. were to be exercised at the behest of either party, it
would open the floodgates to endless litigation and severely
hamper the expeditious disposal of trials.
08. Permitting parties to invoke this provision would
defeat its very object and undermine the Court's control over
the trial process. Misuse of this mechanism by filing petitions
under Section 216 Cr.P.C. would inevitably lead to undue
delay in the conclusion of trials. The law on this aspect is well-
settled, and it is unequivocally established that the power to
alter or add charges lies solely with the Court, and not with
the parties to the proceedings.
09. In view of the foregoing discussion and the
settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in the above decision, this Court is of the considered
view that both the learned Courts have committed a grave
procedural irregularity in allowing the petition filed by the
prosecution under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the
concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well
as the learned Sessions Judge are unsustainable in law,
patently illegal, and constitute a manifest abuse of the
process of the Court. Accordingly, the said orders are liable
to be set aside and quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.02.2022 passed
by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in
Criminal Revision Petition No.177 of 2018, which confirmed
the order dated 28.03.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.384 of 2018 in
C.C.No.216 of 2011 passed by the learned XIII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, is
hereby set aside. All proceedings arising therefrom shall
stand quashed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Dated: 27-JUN-2025
KHRM
