By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 27.05.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua, in Sessions Trial No. 477 of 2010, whereby charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) has been ordered to be added at the stage of final argument.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

(a) The sister of the informant, Ashwani Kumar Chauhan was married to the petitioner no. 1 Arjun Choudhary in the year 2009. After marriage, the petitioner no. 1 and his parents (petitioners no. 2 and 3) started demanding motorcycle and golden chain from the sister of the informant and on failure to fulfil the demand, they subjected her to cruelty. On 16.06.2010, the informant came to know that on 15.06.2010, his sister was killed by the petitioners and in order to conceal the evidence they threw her body in an abandoned condition at a secluded place.

(b) On the basis of the aforesaid allegation made by the informant, the SHO, Kuchila Police Station, registered Kuchila P. S. Case No. 13 of 2010 dated 16.06.2010 against the petitioners under Sections 304-B/34 and 201 of the IPC and took up investigation of the case.

(c) On completion of the investigation, the allegations were found true. Hence, a report under Section 173(2) CrPC was filed in the Court forwarding the petitioners for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/34 and 201 of the IPC.

(d) On receipt of police report, Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and as the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of sessions.

(e) Upon commitment of the case, the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 304-B/34 and 201 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced.

(f) During trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses whereafter the prosecution case was closed. Though the defence did not examine any witness, the statements of accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

(g) Thereafter, at the stage of argument, considering the materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found it prudent to add charge frame charge under Section 302 of the IPC also against the accused persons. Hence, vide impugned order dated 27.05.2015, he directed for addition of the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons.

3. The aforesaid order dated 27.05.2015 is under challenge before this Court.

4. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order dated 27.05.2015 is bad in the eyes of law as the petitioners have not been given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses after addition of charge. He has contended that while passing the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has not assigned any reason for adding the additional charge under Section 302 IPC. He has further contended that even otherwise, there is no material on record on the basis of which the Court could have come to a conclusion that Section 302 IPC was needed to be added to the existing charges under Sections 304-B/34 and 201 IPC.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State has submitted that Section 216 CrPC gives power to the Court to add or alter charge at any stage of trial and hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua. He has further contended that from the perusal of the impugned order itself, it would appear that after addition of the charge under Section 302 IPC, the defence has been given a further chance to adduce evidence, if any, in support of its case. He has also contended that law does not mandate to assign any reason for ad