Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 4, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in S.C. No. 73/2012. The impugned order allowed an application filed by the prosecution under Sections 216 read with 221 of CrPC for alteration of charges. The case pertains to a charge-sheet filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B, 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, charges were framed on 9.6.2015, and the plea was recorded. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 216 r/w 221 CrPC seeking alteration of charges, which was allowed by the Trial Court. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. The High Court observed that the Trial Court had not applied its mind properly while allowing the application and that the order was passed without considering the material on record. The High Court noted that the charges had already been framed and the plea recorded, and the application for alteration was vague and lacked specific grounds. The High Court held that the power under Section 216 CrPC cannot be exercised to fill gaps in the prosecution case or to add new offences not supported by evidence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial based on the original charges framed on 9.6.2015.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Alteration of Charges - Section 216 CrPC - Power to alter charge - The Trial Court allowed an application under Section 216 r/w 221 CrPC to alter charges after framing, but the High Court held that the order was passed without proper application of mind and without considering the material on record. The High Court set aside the order, observing that alteration of charge cannot be permitted to fill gaps in the prosecution case or to add new offences not supported by evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Framing of Charges - Section 216 CrPC - Alteration after framing - The charges were framed on 9.6.2015, and the application for alteration was filed later. The High Court noted that the Trial Court did not record any reasons for allowing the alteration and that the application was vague. The High Court quashed the order, restoring the original charges. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application under Section 216 read with Section 221 of CrPC for alteration of charges after framing of charges, and whether the order is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in S.C.No.73/2012, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial based on the original charges framed on 9.6.2015.
Law Points
- Section 216 CrPC permits alteration of charge at any time before judgment
- but such alteration must be based on material on record and not to fill gaps in prosecution case
- Alteration of charge cannot be allowed after framing of charges without proper application of mind
- Section 216 r/w 221 CrPC cannot be used to add new offences not supported by evidence
