Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35619 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NA
VNEET KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI RAMESHW
AR
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT
48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O SP - 07 SHIRDIPURAM KOLAR ROAD
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI N.K. SHAH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHY
A PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION CHUNA BHATTI DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
AMIT GOSW
AMI S/O SHRI SANTOSH GOSW
AMI
OCCUPATION: SENIOR MANAGER FINANCE DILIP
BUILDCON LIMITED R/O HOUSE NO. 72/1 AZAD
NAGAR BYPASS ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ALOK AGNIHOTRI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
Ankit Saxena,Advocate General
ORDER
Petitioner by the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is challenging the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by him under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner before the trial Court was that the charge of 409 of IPC is not made out against the accused on the basis of material available and, therefore, it is claimed that the charge of 409 be deleted and it may be converted into Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The trial Court has considered the application and rejected the same saying that although Section 216 of Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision and empowers the Court to add or alter the charge during course of trial or before pronouncement of judgment, but in the case at hand the order framing charge has already been passed by the Court and that has not been assailed and the case is at the stage of recording evidence of prosecution witnesses and therefore the charge under Section 409 of IPC cannot be removed.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. In my opinion, in view of the provisions of law, it is for the Court to decide whether under the circumstances and material produced during the course of trial, any charge framed against the accused can be altered or not and as such, the request made on behalf of the accused for altering the charge under Section 216 at the stage when the trial has already commenced and is at the stage of recording evidence of prosecution witnesses has rightly been rejected by the Court.
5. I find no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and, therefore, no interference into the same is warranted. The petition is therefore, dismissed .
6. It is, however, made clear that if ultimately the Court finds that the charge of 409 is not made out against the accused on the basis of material produced by the prosecution, this order would not come in the way of the trial Court. The trial Court may alter or remove the charge framed under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. (SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao
