IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.3435 of 2023

------

1. Rajiv Singh @ Kumar Rajiv Singh, Aged about 53 years,

2. Sujit Singh @ Kumar Sujit Singh @ Anku Singh, Aged about 51

years,

3. Ranjit Singh @ Kumar Ranjit Singh @ Ranu, Aged about 39 years,

All are Sons of Sri Awadhesh Singh @ Awadhesh Prasad

Singh, Resident of Road No.-9, Latma Road, Singhmore, Near Sun

Bright School, P.O.- Singhmore, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi

… Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate

For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. (Through V.C.)

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in S.T. No.661 of 2018 and S.T. No.331 of 2019 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XXI, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XXI, Ranchi has altered the charge by adding the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, when the trial was going on for the charges framed earlier

punishable under Section 498 A, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. to alter the charge has been made after the petition for the same was filed by the informant/ prosecution; even though there is no right of any party to seek for addition or alteration of charge as a matter of right and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh & Another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 347 in paragraph-6 of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated this general principle of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasvinder Saini & Others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7 SCC 256 and submits that in paragraph-11 thereof the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law by observing that there is no doubt about the competence of the court to add or alter a charge at any time before the judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Karimullah Osan Khan reported in (2014) 11 SCC 538 in paragraph-16 of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon the judgment of the Privy Counsel in the case of Thakur Shah vs. King Emperor reported in AIR 1943 PC 192 wherein it was observed that the alteration or addition is always, of course, subject to the limitation that no course should be taken by reason of which the accused may be prejudiced either because he is not fully aware of the charge made or is not given a full opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him on the charge finally preferred.

6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in course of trial, four witnesses have been examined who have corroborated their respective statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the materials collected during the investigation of the case show that the death of the deceased was suicidal and not homicidal. Hence, there is no rhyme or reason to frame any charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XXI, Ranchi has passed the order for alteration of charge in a cryptic manner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

7. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the