IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Pappu Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2471 of 2025
Decided On : 21-04-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 216 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 458 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 9(g), 10, 11(i), 12 - Application for framing of charges - The trial court rejected the application for framing charges under relevant sections, concluding that the ingredients for the offences were not made out (Paras 6, 13).
(B) Powers of the Court - The court has exclusive power to alter or add charges, and there is no right for a party to seek such alteration as a matter of right (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order rejecting the application to frame charges under specific sections of IPC and POCSO Act after the accused were acquitted of other charges. The incident involved the molestation of minors (Paras 2-4).
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order was found to be well-reasoned and legally sound, with no illegality or irregularity (Para 14).
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in not framing charges under the relevant sections of law based on the allegations made (Para 9).
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the power to alter charges is exclusive to the court and not a right of the parties (Para 13).
Result: The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. By way of filing the criminal misc. petition being under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the Learned Court in Cr. Case No.75/2024 dismissing petitioner’s application filed under Sec.216 of CrPC may kindly be quashed and sets aside and learned trial court may may be directed to frame the charges for the offences under section 458 of IPC, sections 9(g)/10 & 11(i)/12 of POCSO Act against the accused respondent as per the statements of the victims recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC by allowing the application filed by the petitioner under section 216 of Cr.P.C.
Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 06.02.2024, Pappu Ram S/o Hema Ram submitted a written complaint at P.S. Marwar Junction alleging inter alia that on 05.02.2024 when his daughters namely ‘S’ aged about 15 years and ‘Sh’, aged about 16 years went to Bara to collect fodder, Rakesh S/o Javari Lal, Hajja Ram S/o Narayan, Nemaram S/o Bora Ram and Mahendra S/o Shankar unauthorizedly entered into the Bara and started teasing and molesting them. Rakesh S/o Javari Lal had taken bite on the hand of the ‘S’ with his teeth. Upon this, ‘S’ and ‘Sh’ started shouting loudly. Hearing their shouts, Jasoda S/o Shankar Lal, Pushpa and Kasudi D/o Javari Lal and their other family members reached to the Bara. However, by that time, above named culprits ran away from the place of incident. Later on, at about 11:00 pm. Dayaram S/o Babu Lal, Arjun, Bhima Ram S/o Javari Lal, Javari Lal, Ram Prasad S/o Narayan Lal alongwith few other persons illegally entered into the house of the Pappu Ram laced with blunt weapons. Dayaram caused injuries to Champa Devi with blunt weapon (lathi). When the accused persons were pushed by the petitioner and Bhanaram out of the house, they threatened to kill them and commit sexual assault upon his daughters.
3. The Investigating Agency on 26.07.2024, file chargesheet against the accused persons namely Rakesh, Nemaram, Mahendra and Hajjaram (respondent No.2) for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. At the time when the chargesheet was filed against the accused persons Hajjaram (respondent No.2) was absconding. In view thereof, his bail bonds were confiscated and warrant of arrest was issued against him.
4. Rakesh, Nemaram, Mahendra faced trial before the competent criminal Court for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. The competent criminal Court vide order dated 23.10.2024, after conducting regular trial against above named accused persons, acquitted them from the charges.
5. When the trial against the above named accused persons was concluded, Hajjaram (respondent No.2) appeared before the learned trial Court on 16.01.2025. The trial against him thereafter commenced and he was charged for the offences under Sections 447, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. After framing of the charges against Hajjaram (respondent No.2), the petitioner-complaint moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for framing of the charges against him for the offence under Sections 458 IPC and section 9(g)/10, 11(i)/12 of POCSO Act instead of Sections 447, 509 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.
6. The learned trial Court by a detailed order dated 01.03.2025 was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner under216 Cr.P.C.
7. Challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the statements of the victims recorded under various Sections of Cr.P.C., the incident took place at 07:00 pm in the n
AI
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in rejecting the application to frame charges, affirming that the power to alter charges is exclusive to the court.
The court cannot quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on the correctness of allegations, especially when serious cognizable offences are disclosed.
The trial court has the power to alter charges at any stage before judgment based on convincing material and grounds, without prejudicing the accused.
(1) Alteration of charge – At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr.P.C., trial court must satisfy : itself that there exists convincing material and grounds to alter existing cha....
The court clarified the applicability of specific sections of IPC and POCSO Act based on the evidence of the case, distinguishing between the roles of the accused.
Serious offences under IPC and POCSO cannot be quashed based on settlements between parties.
The court ruled that allegations of sexual harassment under the POCSO Act must be evaluated on evidence, even amidst claims of family rivalry, necessitating a trial.
The court emphasized the need for evidence in support of altering or adding charges and highlighted the importance of justifying such actions based on the circumstances of the case.
The court confirmed that the power to alter charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. resides exclusively with the court, ensuring the judicial process's integrity without granting parties a demandable right....
Charges under POCSO can be framed without new allegations if based on existing evidence, emphasizing the seriousness of claims made against the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.