The power to add or alter charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. may be exercised before judgment, but it requires evidence-based nexus and recorded reasons to prevent prejudice to the accused and to ensure the trial remains fair, especially when exercised at the concluding stage of proceedings.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Prologue:

The present Criminal Original Petition presents a narrow, yet significant, question touching the lawful exercise of the power of a criminal Court to alter or add a charge at the fag end of trial. The petitioners, who are facing trial in S.C.No.254 of 2018 for the alleged offence under Section 302 IPC, have approached this Court challenging the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Palani, whereby an additional charge under Section 201 IPC, two counts, came to be framed against them after completion of evidence, after questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after completion of arguments, and when the matter stood posted for judgment.

Case of the prosecution:

2. The prosecution case originates from Crime No.157 of 2012. Initially, the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent / defacto complainant regarding the suspicious death of one Varatharajan. During investigation, the case was altered from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302 IPC, two counts, against the petitioners / accused. Upon completion of investigation, final report was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Palani, took the case on file in S.C.No.254 of 2018.

3. The prosecution alleges that on 18.10.2012, A-1, along with A-2 and A-3, and the deceased persons, namely Varatharajan and Dhandapani, stayed at Thoppaiyan Kaadu Guest House for a story discussion. According to the prosecution, on 19.10.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., a quarrel arose among the accused and the deceased persons with regard to naming a film.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the course of the said quarrel, the petitioners attacked Varatharajan, who succumbed to the injuries. Since the other deceased, Dhandapani, had allegedly witnessed the occurrence and might disclose the same, he was also murdered by the accused.

5. The prosecution further alleges that after the occurrence, the petitioners informed the family members of the deceased that the deaths had occurred due to heart attack and handed over the dead bodies to the family members. Since the family of deceased Varatharajan entertained suspicion, the complaint came to be lodged, resulting in the registration and investigation of the case.

Trial proceedings:

6. After committal, the trial commenced in S.C.No.254 of 2018.

During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.3 were also marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, the petitioners were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, arguments were advanced on both sides. The case was posted for judgment on 05.12.2025.

7. At that stage, the learned Trial Judge invoked Section 216 Cr.P.C. and framed an additional charge under Section 201 IPC, two counts, against the petitioners and posted the case for further proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

Grounds for quash:

8. The petitioners assail the impugned order on the following grounds:

8.1. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Trial Judge has framed the additional charge under Section 201 IPC without any specific material available on record.

8.2. Secondly, it is sub