Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
P. Kartikalakshmi - Appellant
Versus
Sri Ganesh & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1709 of 2014 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1899 of 2013)
Decided On : 12-08-2014
Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397 and 401 – Indian Penal Code - Section 417 - Charge for offence – First Information Report – Evidence - Judge took view in so far as claim of appellant for framing an additional charge Section to effect that it is not for accused nor for complainant to apply and for such Signature Not Verified prayer before Trial Court - High Court while dealing with Digitally signed by – Held, Court were taken through Sections in this context. In the light of the facts involved in this case court are only concerned with Section court do not propose to examine implications of the other provisions to the case on hand – Court wish to confine ourselves to the invocation of Section and rest with that In light of our conclusion that power of invocation of Section is excl usively confined with Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment court make it clear that no party, neither de facto complainant nor accused or for that matter the prosecution has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge because it is not provided Section If such course to be adopted by parties is allowed then it will be well nigh impossible for Criminal Court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy trial will get jeopardized - When application preferred by appellant itself before Trial Court was not maintainable it was not incumbent upon Trial Court to pass an order Section there was no question of said order being revisable Section whole proceeding, initiated at instance of appellant was not maintainable. Inasmuch as legal issue had to be necessarily set right court are obliged to clarify the law as is available Section To that extent having clarified the legal position court make it clear that whole proceedings initiated at instance of appellant was thoroughly misconceived and vitiated in law and ought not to have been entertained by Trial Court - Appeal dismissed
Key Points: - (!) Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before judgment; the power is exclusive to the Court as an enabling provision. - (!) There is no vested right in any party (including the de facto complainant or the accused or prosecution) to seek addition or alteration of a charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C.; such action is not provided as a right. - (!) If the appellant's application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable, the Trial Court was not obliged to pass an order under that section; the whole proceedings initiated at the appellant's instance were misconceived and vitiated. - (!) The High Court's revision jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can be applicable, but the Court clarifies the legal position regarding Section 216 Cr.P.C. as an enabling provision. - (!) The court confines its discussion to Section 216 Cr.P.C.; other provisions' implications are not examined. - (!) The appeal concerns the trial court’s handling of adding an charge under Section 417 IPC in the context of a Section 216 Cr.P.C. prayer. - (!) The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and clarifies the legal position that the proceedings initiated by the appellant were not maintainable.
ORDER :
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dated 15.2.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Case No.1560 of 2012 filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Brief facts, which are required to be stated, are: that the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai was dealing with the case in S.C. No.130 of 2011 for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C., as against respondent no.1 herein. In the course of the trial, at the instance of the appellant, an application was filed inv oking Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. wherein a prayer was made to add an additional charge for offence under Section 417 I.P.C. along with charge under Section 376 I.P.C. and to treat the additional charge as one of the original charge as provided under Section 216(3) of the Cr.P.C.
5. The Trial Court by its order dated 10.12.2012 having declined to countenance the prayer of the appellant, a revision came to be filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, wherein the impugned order came to be passed. The learned Judge took the view, in so far as the claim of the appellant, for framing an additional charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to the effect that it is not for the accused nor for the complainant to apply and seek for such a Signature Not Verified prayer before the Trial Court. The High Court while dealing with Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2014.08.14
the question as to the maintainability of the revision held that
18:25:07 IST
Reason:
the revision was maintainable.
6. On the above issues, we heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. A. Ramesh, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. Rai, in his submission, contended that in the F.I.R. there was a charge noted under Section 417 I.P.C., that ultimately when the charge came to be framed against respondent no.1, it was confined to Section 376 I.P.C. and, therefore, in the light of the power vested in the Trial Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C., the appellant was well justified in seeking for a prayer for addition of the charge under Section 417 I.P.C. Learned senior counsel for the appellant also contended that when the Trial Court in its order dated 10.12.2012 having rejected the said prayer once and for all, the appellant had no other remedy except to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. It is contended that the conclusion of the High Court in having held that revision was maintainable was therefore justified. Learned senior counsel contended that it was at the initiation of the complainant, the case came to be launched by the prosecution, that the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offences under Sections 417 and 376 I.P.C. and when in the F.I.R., the said offence under Section 417 I.P.C. was also noted, the appellant was well justified in seeking for addition of the said charge, more so, when the required power was available with the Trial Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed upon the decision rendered in Pratap v. State of U.P. & Others, reported in (1973) 3 SCC 690.
7. As against the above submission, Mr. A. Ramesh, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 in the foremost contended that the whole attempt of the appellant was only to delay the proceedings, inasmuch as the present application seeking for addition of charge came to be filed at the stage when the Trial Court was considering the claim of respondent no.1 that he was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence and, therefore, he was entitled for the benefits available to a juvenile which the Court was bound to examine under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Learned senior counsel, therefore, contended that by filing the present application the appellant successfully thwarted the Trial Court from passing orders under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
8. That apart, learned senior counsel further cont
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
