IMPORTANT POINT
Alteration of charge – Merely for reason that Trial Court while passing order on application filed by respondent under Section 227 of Cr.P.C had made observation that there was no sufficient material to proceed against accused persons for certain offences, Trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C cannot delete charges framed by it for said offences.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the defacto complainant challenging the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru (for short, the ‘Trial Court’).

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent no.2-State.

3. Brief facts as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are, on the complaint of petitioner, a case was registered against the respondent no.1, who is her husband, in Crime no.47/2021 by Bommanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 354(A), 354(C), 376(2)(f) of IPC and under Section 4 & 6(N) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). The police after investigation had filed a charge sheet against the respondent no.1 for the aforesaid offences and the case was numbered as Spl.C.C.No.649/2021 before the Special Court. In the said case an application was filed by the respondent no.1 - accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 14.02.2022. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent no.1 for the aforesaid offences. After framing of charges, the respondent filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C, for altering the charges and a prayer was made to delete the charges framed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 4 & 6(N) of the POCSO Act. The prosecution had not seriously opposed the said application before the Trial Court and the Trial Court by the order impugned dated 16.06.2022 had allowed the said application and being aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant who is the mother of victim girl has approached this Court in this revision petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the accused has no right to maintain the application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C, He submits that mere reading of Section 216 of Cr.P.C, would go to show that the Court has no power to delete any offence from the charge once the charges are framed against the accused. He submits that under Section 216 of Cr.P.C the Court can either alter or add to the charge which is already framed and there cannot be any deletion as such. He submits that by allowing application filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 4 & 6(N) of the POCSO Act which it could not have done having rejected the respondent’s application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi V. Sri Ganesh and Another - (2017) 3 SCC 347 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation V passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.1058/2019 & Connected Matters disposed of on 18.10.2019.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that while passing orders on the application filed by the respondent under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, the Trial Court had clearly observed that there is no material to proceed against the respondent - accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 4 & 6(N) of the POCSO Act. By filing an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C, the accused has prayed to alter the charges accordingly and considering the same, the Trial Court has allowed the same. She submits that if any mistake is committed while framing charge, the Court can always correct the same. She has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant Prakash Sinha alias Anant Sinha V. State o