Parties Cannot Initiate Alteration of Charges; Power Rests Exclusively with the Court, Rules Allahabad High Court

Varanasi, U.P. - In a significant ruling on criminal procedure, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the power to alter or add charges under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is vested exclusively with the trial court and cannot be initiated by any party to the case, including the complainant, the accused, or the prosecution.

Justice Abdul Shahid, while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by one Satyam Sharma, set aside a trial court's order that had entertained an application from the complainant to add charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The High Court held that allowing parties to file such applications would indefinitely delay proceedings and undermine the principle of a speedy trial.

---

Background of the Case

The case stems from a criminal trial (Session Case No. 1150 of 2021) against Satyam Sharma, who was facing charges under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. During the trial, the complainant, Munna Lal Goswami (the victim's father), filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to add charges under the POCSO Act.

The revisionist, Satyam Sharma, challenged this application, arguing that the complainant had no legal right to file it. Despite his objections, the Additional District Judge at Varanasi allowed the application on February 21, 2025, prompting Sharma to file the present criminal revision before the High Court.

---

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the Revisionist (Satyam Sharma): Sri Ajeet Kumar Madhesia, appearing for the revisionist, argued that the trial court committed a grave legal error. The core of his argument was based on the interpretation of Section 216 Cr.P.C. He submitted:

• The power to alter or add charges is a discretionary power of the court, to be exercised suo motu when it discovers an omission or error.
  
  
• The statute does not grant any right to the complainant, prosecution, or accused to file an application seeking such an alteration.
• He cited inconsistencies in the victim's age, pointing to her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where she gave her date of birth as February 27, 2002, making her over 19 at the time of the FIR. The Investigating Officer had also initially dropped the POCSO Act charges based on this evidence.
  
  
• The victim and the revisionist had married in a temple on January 31, 2020, and later executed a notarial marriage agreement on February 27, 2020, the day she turned 18.

Counsel for the State (G.A.): The learned AGA for the State presented the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she alleged that the incident occurred three years prior and that a police inspector had coerced her into stating it was only three months.

---

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedents

Justice Abdul Shahid focused squarely on the legal question of maintainability. The court underscored that Section 216 Cr.P.C. is an "enabling provision" for the court alone.

> "The power of invocation of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusively confined to the Court as enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment. No party, neither complainant nor accused has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge, because it is not provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C."

The bench relied on established Supreme Court precedents to buttress its conclusion:

1. Thakur Ram and others vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 911) : The Supreme Court held that the power under this section can be exercised only by the court on its own, and no party has a right to demand its use.
   
   
2. P.Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh and another (2014) : The Apex Court reiterated this principle, explicitly stating that "no party, neither de facto complainant nor the accused or for that matter, the prosecution has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge." The court warned that allowing such a course would make it "well nigh impossible for the criminal court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy trial will get jeopardized."

The High Court clarified that while a party can bring new facts or evidence to the court's notice, the final decision to alter a charge remains the court's prerogative.

---

Final Decision and Its Implications

Based on this settled legal position, the Allahabad High Court concluded that the trial court's order entertaining the complainant's application was illegal and without jurisdiction.

The Court observed:

> "If it comes to the knowledge of the court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need be passed for that purpose."

Consequently, the criminal revision was allowed, and the impugned order dated February 21, 2025, passed by the trial court, was set aside. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder for lower courts to adhere strictly to the procedural mandate of Section 216 Cr.P.C., ensuring that the power to alter charges is exercised as a judicial function, not at the behest of the litigating parties, thereby safeguarding the efficiency and integrity of criminal trials.