This criminal revision is directed against the orders dated 14.12.2013 and 21.1.2013 passed by Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar in S.T. No. 383 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2012. P.S. Rabupura, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, whereby the application under Section 216, Cr. P.C. moved by the accused-revisionist—Ramu for alteration of the charge was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

There is no need to issue notice to opposite party No. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the witnesses are deemed to be correct, it is a case of sudden quarrel and the offence would not travel beyond Section 304, I.P.C. and the trial court committed illegality in framing the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. and should have allowed the application for alteration of the charge.

4. Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order.

5. According to the F.I.R., on 25.5.2012 at about 8 : 30 p.m., the revisionist met the deceased Rameshwar Singh and asked him about one Pooja. When Rameshwar expressed his ignorance, the revisi