JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

2. In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with.

3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused/ applicants praying inter alia following relief:-

"(i) To quash the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 passed in Case No. 2032/2015 arising out of Crime No.-144/1998 U/s-498A/304B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Behta Gokul District Hardoi and the order dated 03.02.2023 by which revision petition of the petitioners has been rejected in Criminal Revision No. 209/2022 contained here with as Annexure No.2 & 3 to this affidavit."

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the impugned order dated 29.09.2022, whereby the learned trial court has held that the case under Section 304B I.P.C. is also made out against the present applicants, has been passed by the learned trial court in exercise of power vested in it by virtue of Section 216 Cr.P.C., which is evident from the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 itself. However, he submits that the same has been passed on an application moved either by the accused or the complainant/ first informant.

5. His next submission is that the impugned order dated 29.09.2022, in respect of addition of Section 304B I.P.C. against the present applicant on the basis of an application moved by the first informant of this case, is not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 is patently illegal and against the law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh and another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 347.

6. His further submission is that the applicants have preferred a criminal revision bearing No.209 of 2022 against the impugned order dated 29.09.2022, which has been rejected by the learned revisional court without appreciating the aforesaid facts vide impugned order dated 03.02.2023, which is also an abuse of process of this Court. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 29.09.2022 and 03.02.2023 are liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants. However, he has been unable to dispute the aforesaid factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 came to be passed on an application moved by the first informant, Sushil Kumar Singh, under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the applicants preferred a criminal revision bearing No.209 of 2022 against the impugned order dated 29.09.2022, which has also been rejected by the learned revisional court.

9. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with scope of Section 216 Cr.P.C., in paragraph No.10 has held as under:-

"10. Therefore, if during trial the trial court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate."

Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Kartikalakshmi's case (supra) in paragraphs No.6, 7 and 8 has held as under:-

"6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1. Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is now well settled that the power vested in the Court is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matt