Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which allowed a revision petition filed by the fourth respondent (father-in-law of the appellant) and directed the framing of additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant. The appellant, Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy, was originally charged under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 based on an FIR lodged by the fourth respondent on 10 March 2011 alleging harassment for dowry. Subsequently, an additional charge-sheet was filed on 12 April 2013 alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC based on a demand of Rs 5,00,000 for securing a job for the complainant's daughter in the United Kingdom. The trial court initially framed charges only for the original offences, but later, on an application under Section 216 CrPC filed by the Public Prosecutor on 13 February 2017, framed additional charges. The appellant challenged this in revision, and the High Court set aside the order on procedural grounds, leaving it open to the trial court to reconsider. The trial court then, after hearing both sides, rejected the application for additional charges on 11 October 2017, holding that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not made out. The fourth respondent filed a revision against this order, and the High Court allowed it on 6 March 2019, directing framing of additional charges. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. The Court noted that the trial court had perused the material and given reasons for its conclusion, and the High Court ought not to have substituted its own evaluation of witness statements. The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court need only consider whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, and should not go into the probative value of evidence. The Court found that the High Court had erred by evaluating the evidence and directing framing of charges. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's order dated 11 October 2017.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Alteration of Charge - Section 216 CrPC - The court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, but the power must be exercised based on material on record indicating a prima facie case. The trial court, after hearing both sides, concluded that ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not made out, and the High Court in revision ought not to have substituted its own evaluation of witness statements for that of the trial court. (Paras 14-18) B) Criminal Law - Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust - Sections 406 and 420 IPC - Distinction between breach of contract and cheating - To constitute cheating, there must be fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. Mere failure to fulfill a promise does not amount to cheating. The court must examine whether there is sufficient material to presume the offence. (Paras 12-13, 18) C) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - High Court's power under Section 397/401 CrPC - The revisional court should not interfere with a trial court's order unless it is perverse, illegal, or suffers from jurisdictional error. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the probative value of evidence at the stage of framing charges. (Paras 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was justified in directing the framing of additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the appellant, and whether the trial court's order rejecting the application for alteration of charge under Section 216 CrPC was proper.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 6 March 2019, and restored the trial court's order dated 11 October 2017 rejecting the application for framing additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Law Points
- Section 216 CrPC allows alteration of charge at any time before judgment
- but the court must consider whether a prima facie case exists
- revisional court cannot substitute its own evaluation of evidence for that of the trial court at the stage of framing charges
- distinction between breach of contract and cheating depends on intention at the time of inducement
