Allahabad High Court Quashes Order Altering Charges; Reaffirms Court's Exclusive Power Under Sec 216 Cr.P.C.

Varanasi, U.P. - In a significant ruling on criminal procedure, the Allahabad High Court has set aside a trial court's order that allowed the alteration of charges against an accused based on an application filed by the complainant. The bench of Justice Abdul Shahid, in the case of Satyam Sharma vs State Of U.P. , unequivocally held that the power to alter or add charges under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is an exclusive domain of the court and cannot be invoked by any party to the case.

---

Background of the Case

The revisionist, Satyam Sharma, was facing trial in the court of the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, for offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act . The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by the victim's father, Munna Lal Goswami.

During the trial, after the evidence was complete, the complainant filed an application (12-Ka) under Section 216 Cr.P.C., seeking to add charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against Sharma. The trial court allowed this application via an order dated February 21, 2025. Aggrieved by this order, Sharma filed the present criminal revision before the High Court.

---

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the Revisionist (Satyam Sharma):

The primary argument advanced by Sri Ajeet Kumar Madhesia, counsel for the revisionist, was a pure question of law: that an application by a party under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Key submissions included:

• The power to alter charges is an enabling provision exclusively for the court to exercise suo motu (on its own motion).
• Neither the complainant, the accused, nor the prosecution has a vested legal right to demand an alteration or addition of charges.
• The revisionist and the victim were married, and her own statements and documents (Aadhaar card, school records) indicated she was over 19 years old at the time of the incident, which led the Investigating Officer to initially drop the POCSO charges.
• Allowing parties to file such applications would indefinitely prolong criminal proceedings, jeopardizing the principle of a speedy trial.

State's Position:

The learned AGA for the State submitted the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which contained allegations of threats and coercion. However, the High Court noted that the merits of these statements were a matter for the trial court to appreciate during the final evaluation of evidence.

---

High Court's Legal Analysis

Justice Abdul Shahid centered the judgment on the interpretation and scope of Section 216 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the provision is a discretionary power vested solely in the judiciary to ensure justice is done if an omission or error in framing charges comes to its notice.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

The High Court heavily relied on established Supreme Court jurisprudence to buttress its conclusion.

• *** Thakur Ram and others vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 911):
• *** The court cited this case to establish that the power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only by the court on its own initiative.
• *** P.Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh and another (2014):
• *** Reinforcing the principle, the High Court quoted the Supreme Court's clear declaration from this case: > "...the power of invocation of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusively confined with the court... 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, because it is not provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C."

The judgment underscored that while information prompting the court to act can be brought to its notice by a party, this does not confer a right on the party to file a formal application demanding an alteration of charges.

---

Final Decision and Implications

The Allahabad High Court concluded that the trial court committed a legal error by entertaining and allowing the complainant's application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. The court observed that such a procedure is not sanctioned by law and sets a dangerous precedent that could derail criminal trials.

Consequently, the criminal revision was allowed, and the impugned order of the trial court dated February 21, 2025, was set aside. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to lower courts about the procedural sanctity of Section 216 Cr.P.C. and clarifies that the responsibility and power to alter charges lie with the court alone, to be exercised judiciously before the final judgment is pronounced.