The Court upheld its power under Section 216 of the CrPC to add charges upon prosecution request, emphasizing the trial's necessity and the end of justice.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the order of the concerned Court, which adds an offence i.e., the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC ' for short) at the fag end of the proceedings in SC.No.1223/2014, which is being tried for offence punishable under Section 306 of the .

2. Heard Sri. Gangandeep E., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. The petitioner is accused No.1, daughter of the complainant. The daughter of the complainant dies by committing suicide on 13.12.2013. The axe of abetment falls on the petitioner and other members. The petitioner is accused No.1, who is said to have hurled certain abuses which had led to the daughter committing suicide. The trial is on for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC . The concerned Court at the fag end of the trial realises that the petitioner ought to have also been charged under the offence punishable under Section 498A of the as well and passes an order for framing of charge for the offence punishable under of the , by invoking its power under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court challenging the order of the concerned Court on the application filed by the prosecution seeking inclusion of the offence punishable under of the at the fag end of the trial on the score that the concerned Court ought not to have considered the application and added an offence to be tried all over again.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of SHIVAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in2024 SCC OnLine Kar 31774 to buttress his submission that the prosecution cannot file an application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of the charge on the score that it is only the concerned Court which has suo motu power to alter charges. He would further seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case ofDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE v. RAJ KUMAR ARORA reported in2025 SCC OnLine SC 819 which, according to the learned counsel, considers the entire spectrum of the law and holds that the prosecution cannot be permitted to file an application of alteration of charge under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submission in contending that albeit Section 216 of the Cr.P.C permits suo motu alteration of charge at the hands of the concerned Court, the prosecution is also well within its power to file an application seeking alteration of charges and would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

7. The issue at this juncture lies in a narrow compass as to whether the order of the concerned Court permitting alteration of charge on an application being filed by the prosecution is in consonance with law or otherwise. Therefore, the application in the order so passed is necessary to be considered. The objection to the application filed by the prosecution reads as follows:

"OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 216 of Cr.P.C BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

1. The Application Under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is neither maintainable in fact or law and has to be dismissed in limine.

2. The Application is filed with Ulterior motive to protract the Proceedings at the f