IMPORTANT POINT
Alteration/addition of charge – Power to alter or add a charge is exclusively with Court and no party is required to file petition praying Court to invoke powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is filed challenging the order passed in Crl.MP.No.308 of 2025 in SC.No.110 of 2016 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge – Cum – Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women at Chittoor.

2. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1 in SC.No.110 of 2016 and is aggrieved by the order passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge – Cum – Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women at Chittoor on a petition filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.,).

3. The learned Sessions Judge has allowed the petition filed by the prosecution and reframed the following charges;

i. Charge under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code be framed against the accused A1 to A12 for the alleged criminal conspiracy with an intention to kill the Katari Anuradha (herein after referred as Deceased No.1), Katari Mohan (herein after referred as Deceased No.2).

ii. Charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code be framed against the accused A1 for the alleged causing death to Deceased No.1 by A1’s use of a firearm.

iii. Charge under Section 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal code be framed against the accused A2 to A5 for their alleged presence with A1 while doing the above act and shared a common object.

iv. Charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code be framed against the accused A4 for the alleged attempt to commit murder of P.W1 by using dagger.

v. Charge under Section 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code be framed against the accused A1 to A3 and A5 for their alleged presence with A4 while doing the above act and shared a common object.

vi. Charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code be framed against the accused A1 to A5 for the alleged causing death to Deceased No.2 by use of a dagger, big knives etc.,

4. Sri. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., it is the exclusive power of the Court to alter charge and that there could not have been an occasion for the investigating officer to file a petition seeking alternation of charge.

5. It is submitted that the petition seeking alteration of charges was filed at a very belated stage after the examination of as many as 56 prosecution witnesses was completed. The Investigating officer was examined as PW.57 for almost a month, and the petition was filed by the prosecution at a belated stage. The attempt of the prosecution is only to delay the trial.

6. The learned senior counsel places reliance on V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I., 1980 Supp SCC 92 and submits that the object of framing of charge as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the accused is clearly informed about the charge(s) in unambiguous terms. Allegations of facts constituting the offence, must be informed to the accused. The section of law which alleged to be violated with the name of the law in which it is contained should be informed. The object of a charge is to convey to the accused person of the case he is to answer.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also relies on P.Kartilakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and another, (2017) 3 SCC 347, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 7 and 8 held as follows;

…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 vest