Jitendra Kumar, J. – The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been preferred by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 02.03.2016, passed by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in T.R. No. 747 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 195 of 2006, arising out of Laheriyasarai P.S. Case No. 32 of 2006, whereby the application filed on behalf the prosecution for alteration of charge has been rejected.

2. The relevant facts of the case is that Laheriyasarai P.S. Case No. 32 of 2006 was lodged under Section 143, 144, 451, 380, 384, 386 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, after investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 144, 323, 427, 452, and 451 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, however, was not framed. Subsequently, trial proceeded and five prosecution witnesses were examined. Argument on behalf of both the sides were already heard and the case was fixed for judgment on 25.06.2015 and at that stage the prosecution filed the said application for alteration of charge praying for addition of charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. However, Ld. Trial Court rejected the application filed by the prosecution holding that application is meant to delay the disposal of the case which is already nearly about ten years old.

3. I heard Ld. counsel for the Petitioner who is son of the Petitioner and Ld. APP for the State.

4. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that Ld. Trial Court has arbitrarily rejected the application on the ground of delay in disposal of the trial. He further submits that as per the merit of the case, charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out and Ld. Trial Court should have allowed the application adding charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code to the charge already framed.

5. However, per contra, Ld. APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner, submitting that alteration of charge is provided under Section 216 of the Cr. P.C. whereby it is the Court which may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced and no party is authorized to move any application for addition or alteration of any charge nor Court is required to entertain such an application from either of the parties. Any such application on behalf of either of the parties is not maintainable. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6. Hence, Ld. APP submits that Ld. Trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the Petitioner, though on different grounds. He also refers to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh and Anr. (2017 3 SCC 347), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that power of invocation of Section 216 Cr.PC is exclusively confined to the Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment. It was also made clear by Hon'ble Apex Court that no party, 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 is not provided under Section 216 Cr.PC. It was further held that if such a course to be adopted by the parties 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 jeopardised. In such circumstances, when the application preferred by the appellant itself before the trial court was not maintainable, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to pass an order under Section 216 Cr. PC. Therefore, there was no question of the said order being revisable under Section 397 Cr. PC. The whole proceeding, initiated at the instance of the appellant, was not maintainable. The whole proceedings initiated at the instance of the