The power to alter or add charges under criminal procedure is an exclusive, discretionary authority conferred upon the trial court. No party possesses a vested right to seek such amendments through a formal application, and such requests cannot be used to, or allowed to, delay or derail the trial.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. Present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 19.5.2025 and 5.4.2023 passed by Additional District and Session Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 13, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 459 of 2022 (State vs. Praveen Pal) arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2022, under Sections 376(3) IPC and Section 3 /4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 15.2.2022 under Sections 376, 313, 354, 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3 /4 of POCSO Act. The date of incident was not mentioned in the aforesaid first information report, registered as Case Crime No. 57 of 2022 at Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat. It is alleged in the first information report that the victim was subjected to rape by the applicant 6-7 years ago. The victim, in the first information report, claimed that she was aged about 16 years at the time of the alleged incident. Her obscene video was made by the applicant and she was being blackmailed by the applicant. Later the victim conceived, however, the applicant gave a medicine to the victim /informant and after the administration of medicine, she suffered miscarriage. Several other allegations were levelled in the first information report. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of the victim, wherein she claimed to be aged about 22 years and stated that the incident took place 5-6 years ago. In her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 18.2.2022, the victim claimed herself to be aged about 25 years and stated that the incident took place 6-7 years ago. The Investigating Officer after due investigation submitted charge-sheet in this case on 17.4.2022 under Sections 376, 313, 354, 452, 323, 506 IPC read with Section 3 /4 of POCSO Act.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per high-school certificate, the date of birth of the victim / informant was 17.7.1997, therefore, she was more than 24 years of age at the time of lodging of first information report. The applicant claimed discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., however, his discharge application was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.3.2023 and charges were framed against the applicant on 5.4.2023 under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 3 /4(2) of POCSO Act. The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. It is further submitted that the victim / informant was examined in the trial court on 23.6.2023, 11.3.2024 and 3.4.2024. In her examination in chief, she stated that the incident took place on 13.3.2016. As per her high-school certificate, her date of birth was 17.7.1997. Therefore, as per statement of the victim, her age was 18 years, 7 months and 26 days at the time of the alleged incident and at the time of lodging of first information report, her age was 24 years 6 months and 28 days. The victim was a major girl at the time of alleged incident and that, as per her medical report, she was aged about 25 years. The provisions of POCSO Act would not be applicable in this case and charge under Section 376(3) IPC is liable to be altertered. Therefore, an appl