Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today to bring on record the certified copy of the charge sheet filed in the case concerned, is taken on record.

The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated 27.7.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Meerut, in S.T. No.363 of 2012 under Sections 147,148,308,504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Jani, District Meerut, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application moved by the complainant/applicant for alteration/addition of additional charge under Section 326 and 307.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the police after investigation had filed charge-sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. along with other sections. However, the learned Magistrate, while framing charge, instead of framing charge under Section 307 I.P.C., framed charge under Section 308 I.P.C. ignoring the statement of the Doctor, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the statement of the doctor, who was examined as P.W.6, during the trial, and who stated that the injury sustained by the injured was dangerous to life and could have been proved fatal, the applicant moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. before the trial court to frame charge under Section 307 and 326 I.P.C., against the accused persons which was rejected by the trial court, by the impugned order dated 27.7.2016 on the flimsy grounds. Hence it has been prayed by learned counsel that the impugned order be set aside and the court below be directed to pass fresh orders on the application moved by applicant for alteration/addition of charge.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned trial judge has rejected the application on the following four grounds:

1. that the applicant is neither the first informant nor the injured,

2. the application moved under Section 216 Cr.P.C. has not been moved by the Public Prosecutor,

3. Had there been any intention to kill on the part of the accused persons, they would have inflicted repeated blows on the injured and not only a single blow, as in the instant case.

4. the trial is at concluding stage and the alteration or addition of charge will cause delay in its final disposal.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of this case in wake of the well settled legal position, I do not find much substance in any of the aforesaid grounds on which the learned trial court has rejected the application for the following reasons:-

It is true that the applicant is neither the injured nor the first informant in the case but he is the father of the injured who being the legal heir, comes in the category of "victim" as per the definition of 'victim' provided under the Cr.P.C. and he has a right to move an application before the court.

Thus the first ground on which the application has been rejected by the trial court, is unsustainable.

So far as the second ground on the basis of which the court below has rejected the application moved by the applicant, is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments has laid down the law that the victim of a case or the legal heirs of the victim can move the court directly if the Public Prosecutor fails to perform its duty.

In the typical adversary system of administration of criminal justice, the victim takes a back seat behind the stage due to the reason that prosecution is conducted by the State, it being custodian of public safety and public order and the status of victim or complainant is that of a witness only. Therefore, the possibility can not be ruled out that the Public Prosecutor, having no personal interest sometimes inadvertently conducting the trial may fail to conduct it properly. This state of aff