The central legal point established in the judgment is that only the court has the power to frame, alter, or add charges, and neither the prosecution nor the person interested has the right to file a petition to delete existing charges or add new charges.

The order dated 17.08.2007 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.269 of 2007 in Sessions Case No.223 of 2006 by the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticor in, is now under challenge.

2. The wife of the deceased by name Krishnammal has filed Criminal Miscellaneous petition No.269 of 2007, praying to frame additional charges under Sections 302, read with 34, 120(b), 201, 217, 218, 220, 331, 342, 348 and 367 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court below has come to the conclusion to the effect that framing of additional charge does not arise at this stage. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present criminal revision case has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has repeatedly contended that all the accused have committed offences under Sections 302, read with 34, 120(b), 201, 217, 218, 220, 331, 342, 348 and 367 of the Indian Penal Code, but, the Court below has framed a charge simplicitor under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in order to frame additional charges, the revision petitioner as petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.269 of 2007, but, the Court below without considering the contentions urged on the side of the revision petitioner, has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and necessary direction to be given to the court below for framing additional charges.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 11 has also equally contended that the revision petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition for framing additional charges and the power of framing charges, additional charges and altering the same, vests with the Court and the Court below, after considering the rival contentions raised on either side, has rightly rejected the claim of the revision petitioner and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is not liable to be interfered with.

5. For analyzing the divergent submissions made by either counsel, it would be more useful to look into the relevant Sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows;

"(1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.

(2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.

(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.

(4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge.

(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.

(6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court.

(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit it award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at any time before sentence is passed."

7. Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows;

"(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.

(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused