The wide power of the court under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter charges at any stage before judgment and the duty of the public prosecutor to apprise the court of any defect in framing charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Kesari learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has refused to file any counter affidavit in the instant matter, therefore, present application is being decided on merits with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 651 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 300 of 2005, under Sections 372, 373 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station Manduwadih, District Varanasi.

4. An FIR, being Case Crime No. 300 of 2005, under Sections 373, 373 I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 of Immoral Traffick (Prevention) Act, 1956 has been lodged by the Police Inspector. Some young girls have been recovered from two different places. Charge sheet has been submitted against two accused persons, however, present applicant was neither named in the FIR nor arraigned in the charge sheet as an accused. Ultimately, Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2006 was concluded convicting both accused and the same was affirmed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 5583 of 2016 vide order dated 05.08.2019. During this period an application dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure-2) has been moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to call upon the eight persons including present applicant as an accused for trial together with other co-accused. The said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 24.05.2021. High Court, on application being filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 29267 of 2011, has relegated the parties before the trial court with a direction to reconsider the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 14.09.2011. Learned trial court, after remand, has passed the order dated 07.01.2012 with a direction that the matter may be reinvestigated under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In pursuance thereof, after due investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the supplementary charge sheet dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure No.22) arraigning the present applicant under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under sections 372 and 373 I.P.C. Considering the supplementary charge sheet dated 17.07.2020, learned trial court has framed the charges against the present applicant vide order dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure No.15). At later stage, prosecution has moved an application dated 12.03.2021 (Paper No.10 Kha) (Annexure-20) beseeching frame one additional charge under Section 376 I.P.C. against the present applicant. Learned trial court, vide order impugned dated 23.11.2022 (Anneuxre-21), has allowed the aforesaid application (Paper No.10 Kha) and fix next date 18.12.2022 for framing of additional charge against the present applicant. On the pointed query raised to the learned counsel for the parties they have stated that till date charge has not been framed under Section 376 I.P.C. Having been aggrieved, with order dated 23.11.2022, allowing the application (Paper No.10 Kha), applicant (accused) has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by moving the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has advanced three fold submissions before this Court. First relating to the maintainability of the application dated 12.03.2021 (Paper No.10 Kha) on the ground that the prosecution or any other interested persons have no locus standi to move any application before the court concerned for alteration or addition of charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Kartiklakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and Another r