The court confirmed that the power to alter charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. resides exclusively with the court, ensuring the judicial process's integrity without granting parties a demandable right to alter charges.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Sri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2/Special Court (SC/ST Act), Farrukhabad, allowing the application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of the State in Special Sessions Trial No.44 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.436 of 2013, at Police Station Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the learned Trial Court in allowing the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution is illegal. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Ganesh and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 347 held that no party, neither the de facto complainant nor the accused or, for that matter, the prosecution, has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge, because it is not provided under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that if such a course is adopted by the parties, then it will be well nigh impossible for the Criminal Court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy trial will get jeopardized.

4. He submitted that the charges in this case were framed against the appellant on 24.11.2023 under Sections 323, 324, 506, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(10), 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act. However, an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution after partial examination of PW-1. There was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to allow the application filed on behalf of the prosecution.

5. It was further submitted that initially the FIR against the appellant and others was lodged under Section 307 IPC, wherein the respondent/informant alleged that co-accused Waseem Ali Khan fired upon respondent no.2, Devki Nandan alias Pintu. Respondent no.2, Devki Nandan alias Pintu, was brought before Dr. Rajeev Kumar at Samudayik Swasthya Kendra, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, for medical examination. The doctor found a lacerated wound measuring 0.4 × 0.4 cm on the right elbow and also advised an X-ray examination. The said doctor opined that the nature of the injury did not suggest that it was caused by a firearm. On the basis of the X- ray report, the doctor also observed that it appeared that two pellets were placed on the side of the injury in order to establish a firearm injury.

6. The Investigating Officer also concluded during investigation that the injury report suggested that all injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects. Hence, there was no indication to suggest that the injured sustained any firearm injury. The Investigating Officer further mentioned that the criminal prosecution was initiated due to prior enmity and that there was no motive on the part of the accused persons to cause injury to the injured.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant-accused was prejudiced by the step taken by the learned Trial Court in allowing the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. after partial cross-examination of PW- 1. The counsel for the accused had prepared himself to cross-examine the prosecution witness on the basis of the charge framed under Section 324 IPC, and such cross-examination was also partially completed. If the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is allowed to remain in force, then the right to effectively cro