The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 15-02-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 38412018 in CC. No.216 of 2011, dated 28-03-2018 passed by the Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 o't Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in to stay all further proceedings including the presence of the Petitioner / Accused no- 2 to 5 in CC. No.216 of 2O11on the file of the Court of the Xlll Addl. Chief Meiropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. S.Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1631 OF 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to B seeking to quash the impugned Order dated 15022022 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.3B4 oI 2O1B in C.C.No.216 of 2011 passed by the learned Xlll Additional Chief lvletropolitan lVlagistrate, 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 lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC')

02. Heard Sri Srinivas Dammalapati, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.ltiladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent Perused the record- 2

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. Fu(her, both the Courts had failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case rn 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 anothe/ wherein at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it was held that: "Q. Having heard learned counsel for the respective pariies, we find force in the submisston of learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 . Section 216 Cr.P.C. ' 120171 3 Supreme Cou( Cases 347 I I i I 3 empowers the Couft to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. lt is now we settled that the power vested in the Court is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any pady to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right. lt 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 Couft at any time before the judgment is pronounced. lt is an enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. ln such a situation if it comes to the knowledge of the Courl that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on lfs 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 pafties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

7. We were taken through Secfrbns 221 & 222 of the Cr.P.C. in this context. ln the light of the facts involved in lhls 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 wrsh to confine ourselves to the invocation of Section 216 and rest with that. ln the light of our conclusion that the power of invocation of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusivety confined with the Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before 4 l pronouncement of the judgment, we make it clear that no pafty, 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 ls not provided under Section 216 Cr P.C. lf such a course to be adopted by the pafties 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 5 accused under Section 313 of Cr P.C. At this advanced stage of the proceedings, the prosecution flled 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 lPC.

06. ln the context of the present case, it is relevant to extract Section 216 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under "21 6. Couft may alter charge. A Any Couft 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. (!) lf the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the tial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to preludice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Couft may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the tial as if the altered or added charge has been the oiginal charge. {!) lf 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 Coutl may, either direct a new tial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. G) lf the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction \ 6 is necessa4T, the case shall not be proceeded with untit such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facfs 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. lf 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 7 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. I I

09. ln 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. Consequenfly, 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 I I 1 'i 8 the order dated 28.03.2018 in Crl.lt/.P.No.384 of 2018 in C.C.No 216 ol 2011 passed by the learned Xlll Additional Chief lMetropolitan I\/agistrate, IVlahila Court, Hyderabad, IS hereby set aside. All proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. JAYASREE ASSI TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER \, One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Smt. Justice Juwadi Sridevi (For Her LadyshiPs kind Perusal) The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad' The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company +ffi ::)il::^Tvocates Association Library, Hish court ror the state or Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. 1 1 LR Copies. The Station House Officer, Nallakunta Police Station' Hyderabad' One CC to Sri. Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, Advocate [OPUC]' Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] Two CD Copies. YJR/GH To, 1 2 ., 4 5 Ct 7 8 o 4, (' s lrlllBM t or, I .l i.,1:t HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 o. c o L) ORDER CRLP.No.1631 of 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. a\,1 \ (