IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16616-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 AMIT CHOPRA ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Vide this petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, petitioner seeks quashing/setting aside of order dated 16.02.2026 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, vide which application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. filed by prosecution in case arising out of FIR No. 0032 dated 24.03.2022 under Sections 354, 509, 323, 427 and 34 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Division-3, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, for alteration of charge was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforementioned FIR was registered on false complaint of respondent No. 2. After registration of the case, petitioner and his father moved an application for re-investigation, free and fair investigation and after conducting an enquiry, offences under Sections 323, 354 IPC were deleted from the FIR. Challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against the petitioner and his father only under Sections 427, 509 and 34 IPC and charges too were framed accordingly. During trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charges, which learned trial Court rightly dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2025. However, subsequently, prosecution again filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge on the same grounds. Learned trial Court erroneously allowed the said application vide impugned order dated 16.02.2026. Learned counsel refers to judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M- 48857-2022 titled Priyanka Vs. State of Haryana and Another, decided on 29.11.2022 to submit that the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for amendment of charge could not be allowed when the earlier order on the same issue had attained finality. He further submits that power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. lay exclusively with the Court and could not be invoked by the complainant, the accused or the prosecution and any application by a party to alter or add charges was untenable. In this context, he referred to Santosh Vs.

State of Haryana and Others 2025 NCPHHC 2793.

3. The scope of exercise power to alter charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. has been discussed by a two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 787, speaking through Justice Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud, as follows:

“20. From the above line of precedents, it is clear that Section 216 provides the court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge. The use of the words "at any time before judgment is pronounced" in Sub-Section (1) empowers the court to exercise its powers of altering or adding charges even after the completion of evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment.

The alteration or addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court there was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima facie examination of the material brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a charge is that the material brought on record needs to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged offence. Addition of a charge merely commences the trial for the additional charges, whereupon, based on the evidence, it is to be determined whether the accused may be convicted for the additional charges. The court must exercise its powers under Section 216 judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused and that he is allowed to hav