The power to alter or add charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusively reserved for the court; neither party has the right to petition for such changes.

JUDGMENT : 

ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Madhesia, the learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for the State. None is present for opposite party Nos.2 and 3, despite sufficient service.

2. Satyam Sharma, the revisionist, has filed the present criminal revision being aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.2025, passed by Additional District Judge/FTC-II (for trying-cases of crime against women) at Varanasi in Session Case No.1150 of 2021 titled State vs. Satyam Sharma, arising out of Case Crime No.99 of 2021 under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station-Chetganj, District-Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. (12-Ka) has been filed by the complainant of the case, namely, Munna Lal Goswami and seeks the permission that the charges against the POCSO Act shall be altered against the accused Satyam Sharma. The revisionist has submitted that he had filed objection 16-Kha before the learned trial court and took this plea that the charge- sheet has been filed and the evidence, in the case, is already complete. The applications filed by the complainant under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The marriage between victim and accused took place on 31.1.2020 at Shitla Mata Mandir and it was further registered at court on 27.2.2020.

4. The revisionist has further submitted that the learned trial court has completely committed legal error. The revisionist has further submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the law does not permit either of the parties of the case to move an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C.

5. He further submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 7.7.2021, where on the reply of this specific question to the victim when accused had entered the physical relationship with him. The victim specifically replied that the accused make physical relationship with her for the last three months. When the question was asked about her date of birth and its certificate, she specifically replied that my date of birth is 27.2.2002; I'm submitting my copy of Aadhaar- card and photostat copy of my class-VIII at junior high-school.

6. He further submitted that the medical-examination of the victim took place and 'no-injury' was found on her body and her hymen was found ruptured. In the medical-examination of the victim dated 7.7.2021, it is mentioned that the incident of offence is one year before. He further submits that at the time of reporting of the incident before the concerned police station, the victim was more than 19 years. He further submits that the FIR was registered on 7.7.2021 and there is no date, time of occurrence of offence is mentioned in the FIR, which was lodged by father of the victim. He further submits that Investigating Officer of the case during the course investigation prepared the Parcha No.2 dated 10.7.2021, where he mentioned that as per marks-sheet of the victim, the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the age of victim is 19 years 4 months, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 had been omitted. During the further course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the second statement, in which the first informant/father of the victim himself contradicted and not supported his earlier version recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

7. In the additional statement of first informant/father of the victim, where the question was asked him about the pistol then he replied that it is made of plast