SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 64

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
Keesara Laxmi, Lakshmi and others – Appellant 
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.1631 of 2023
Decided On : 27-06-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: ARUVA RAGHURAM MAHADEV
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The right to alter charges under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. is exclusively reserved to the Court and cannot be initiated by the parties involved, ensuring the integrity and expediency of criminal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 216 - Alteration of charges - Application for alteration of charges filed by prosecution post completion of trial was allowed by lower courts, which was quashed by this Court - Court stated the necessity of ensuring charges are determined by the Court alone, and not subject to party applications - Highlighted procedural irregularity in earlier decisions. (Paras 3 to 10)

(B) Legal principle - The power to alter charges under Section 216 is exclusive to the Court and cannot be invoked by parties as a matter of right - Premised on the necessity of expeditious trials and clear defense rights. (Paras 3, 7 and 9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the orders allowing the prosecution to alter charges under Section 216 post-trial completion for an ongoing case from 2011, arguing the courts failed to assess the necessary elements of the alleged offenses. (Paras 1 to 2)

Findings of Court:
Both lower court orders were found to be illegal and constituted procedural abuse, leading to the annulment of the orders allowing charge alterations. (Paras 9 and 10)

Issues: Whether the lower courts erred in permitting the prosecution to alter charges after completion of the trial, and the implications on the rights of the accused to a fair trial. (Paras 5 to 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed that the right to initiate alterations under Section 216 is vested solely in the Court, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse by parties that could delay criminal proceedings. (Paras 7 to 9)

Result: Criminal Petition is allowed. Orders from both lower courts quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview and purpose of the petition. (Para 1)
2. final order and outcome of the petition. (Para 10)

ORDER

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 8 seeking to quash the impugned Order dated 15.02.2022 in Criminal Revision Petition No.177 of 2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the learned Sessions Judge’), confirming the Orders dated 28.03.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.384 of 2018 in C.C.No.216 of 2011 passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) wherein the application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) was allowed adding the offence under Section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri Srinivas Dammalapati, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

Perused the record.

03. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that both the Courts had not satisfied with regard to the required ingredients of any of the alleged offences. Further, both the Courts had failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper manner and passed the impugned Orders. The certificate of the Doctor marked as Ex.P7 do not disclose any injury, which may lead to the death of the victim. Both the Courts miserably failed to consider the fact that the entire trial was completed and the prosecution cannot file an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. The power conferred upon the Court under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. is discretionary and exclusive, and shall not be invoked at the instance of either party by way of an application. Hence, while seeking for quashment of the impugned Order, he relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and another , (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 347 wherein at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it was held that:

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we find force in the submission of learned senior counsel for respondent no.1. Section 216 Cr.P.C.

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 matter of right. It may be that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge of the Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in the Court, as provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is an enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. In such a situation if it comes to the knowledge of the Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or addition when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

7. We were taken through Sections 221 & 222 of the Cr.P.C. in this context. In the light of the facts involved in this case, we are only concerned with Section 216 Cr.P.C. We, therefore, do not propose to examine the implications of the other provisions to the case on hand. We wish to confine ourselves to the invocation of Section 216 and rest with that. In the light of our conclusion that the power of invocation of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusively confined with the Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any ch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top