HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.

SIVA SANKARA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.661 of 2017

ORDER:

The revision petitioners are A.1 to A.3 in C.C.No.358 of 2012

on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sattenapalle, Guntur District, for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The police originally filed the charge sheet for above penal

provisions from registration of crime on the report of the defacto

complainant, conducted further investigation with permission of

Court under Section 173 (8) CrPC and filed additional charge sheet

by including the offence under Sections 406 & 420 IPC. The trial

Court framed charges at the post cognizance stage only on the

original charge sheet accusation without specifically referring to

the additional charge sheet it appears on 21.03.2016. It is on the

charges for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and

Sections 3 & 4 DP Act with no charge for the offence under

Sections 406 & 420 IPC, the accused faced trial. It is after

completion of evidence, when the matter is at the fag-end and even

arguments heard and matter reserved for judgment, there was

application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor representing the

State under Section 216 CrPC on 13.02.2017, stating that the

charges under Sections 406 & 420 IPC were not framed originally

though police filed additional charge sheet on said Sections on

17.04.2013 and non filing of the petition earlier is not willful and

hence to frame additional charge invoking Section 216 Cr.P.C.

2. The counter of the accused before the lower Court in

opposing the petition is in saying, charges were framed on

21.03.2016 after filing of the charge sheet and submission of

additional charge sheet and after hearing and later trial was

conducted and arguments of both sides were heard at length on

03.02.2017 and the matter is posted for judgment and at this

stage, the present petition filed by the prosecution is nothing but

abuse of process and if at all there was any necessity to frame

charge, the prosecution could have been moved earlier and at this

stage when the matter is posted for judgment, the petition filed to

fill up the lacunas cannot be allowed and such a recourse is

impermissible to the prejudice of the accused and sought for

dismissal.

3. The impugned order of the lower Court shows that

previously the learned Magistrate at the post cognizance stage

while framing charges did not draw his attention to the additional

charge sheet filed by police for the offence under Sections 406 &

420 IPC and the additional charge sheet filed by police was not

even drawn attention of the present Judge earlier and the act of

the Court shall prejudice no man apart from the power of the

Court under Section 216 CrPC to alter or add or delete any charge

at any time before pronouncement of judgment and the

prosecution witnesses already examined and also they deposed to

the offence under Sections 406 & 420 IPC and thereby the

prosecution if not considered the request suffer loss and no

prejudice is being caused to the accused in allowing the

application to frame additional charge by invoking Section 216

CrPC.
 3 Dr.SSRB,J
Crl.R.C.No.661 of 2017

4. The contentions in the grounds of revision are that

charges framed after hearing both sides and later trial was

completed and arguments of both sides were heard, including on

03.02.2017 elaborately and posted for judgment to 13.02.2017 and

it is on that day of judgment the trial Judge suggested to the

Assistant Public Prosecutor that there are no charges framed

under Sections 406 & 420 IPC and thereby he is proceeding under

Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 DP Act and the prosecution

to come up with any application to frame additional charges if so

chooses. It was from such suggestion, the Assistant Public

Prosecutor filed application on the date of Judgment. Even the trial

Judge stated that judgment is ready to pronounce, instead of doing

so passed over the matter and received the handwritten application

of the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 216 CrPC and the

same was opposed and counter filed and without pronouncing

judgment, the matter was posted to 21.02.2017 and allowed the

application which is contrary to law, unjust and unsustainable

and the prosecution agency cannot fill up gaps much less by

invoking Section 216 CrPC and lower Court ought not to have been

adopted the said procedure supra, but for to pronounce the

judgment, if not apart from there is no material to frame further

charges under Sections 406 & 420 IPC of no criminal breach of

trust or cheating arises and they were interpolated in the

statements of LWs after charge sheet filed in the illegal and

improper manner and there is no fresh investigation after original

charge sheet filed to call as further investigation and there is no

material to frame any additional charges under Sections 406 & 420

IPC and the so called further investigation material is created with

a malafide intention and the impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

5. In the revision, the defacto complainant Dr. P.M.Reddy

filed application to come on record as 2nd respondent and the same

was allowed in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1264 of 2017 and the learned

Public Prosecutor representing the State as 1st respondent filed

counter opposing the revision saying the father of the alleged

victim written report dated 10.03.2011 was for the offence under

Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act and the police

after investigation filed charge sheet for the offences supra and

later on additional information about offences under Sections 406

& 420 IPC, after obtaining permission of learned Magistrate from

the further investigation, additional charge sheet was filed and

during the hearing before charges only the 1st charge material was

considered and by over sight the additional charge sheet material

was ignored by the then officer and the witnesses deposed

regarding the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating

committed by accused and accused were also examined under

Section 313 CrPC with reference to that evidence and 2 witness

who were not cited in the 1st charge sheet and cited in the 2nd

charge sheet were also examined during trial and thereby on

noticing, the prosecution filed an application that was allowed by

lower Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed for nothing to

interfere.

6. The accused filed counter against the said vacate petition

of the defacto complainant saying the wife of A.1- the alleged victim

did not present any report to the police in registering the crime
 5 Dr.SSRB,J
Crl.R.C.No.661 of 2017

supra, but for by her father and it is a case to call for report of the

learned Magistrate to know what is transpired of stated in the

revision grounds. The 1st petitioner/A.1 earlier filed quash petition

in this Court in Crl.P.No.4583 of 2014 and the same is pending

and the revision to be heard along with it and another

Crl.P.No.10985 of 2014. The impugned order of the learned

Magistrate is unsustainable on facts and law and it is not the

prerogative of the prosecution to invoke Section 216 CrPC, but for

if at all by the Court subject to merits and thereby the contra

contentions in the stay vacate petition or in the counter to the

revision are unsustainable.

7. Heard both sides at length and perused the material on

record.

8. Section 216 CrPC is no doubt an enabling provision

subject to factual foundation and merits of the matter for the

power of the Court to exercise to alter or add or delete any charge

at any stage including after hearing arguments and before

pronouncement of judgment. Once Section 216 CrPC is invoked,

automatically the parties have to be given option for recall of any

witnesses for further examination under Section 217 CrPC in all

fairness. In fact the learned Magistrate did not do so. The

prosecution agency or defacto complainant even not chosen to seek

for alteration of charge at any stage during trial or even while

submitting arguments and it is not the case that they were

unaware of the additional investigation material. The Court in fact

reserved the matter for judgment after full dressed trial and from

hearing arguments at length. It was only pointed out on the date of

pronouncement of judgment by the trial court stating that

judgment is even ready, there is a lacuna saying charges are not

framed under Sections 406 & 420 IPC. If at all the Court wanted to

do so, it could have been, at best by passing a reasoned order

before pronouncement of judgment, within its power and that was

not even done in this case. It was the learned Public Prosecutor at

that stage was if not practically asked by court, at least permitted

to file the application, which could not be. Thus but for at best to

say said application is only to bring to the notice of the court the

necessity to frame any additional charge, even taken same

outcome from suggestion by court from any doubt on the need by

the court. In fact the necessity if found by the Court and once

such is the case if at all; there is no need for the court to ask the

learned Public Prosecutor to file application from what is discussed

supra.

9. Thereby entertaining the application from the prosecution

agency for alteration of charge when the matter is posted for

judgment instead of pronouncing judgment on that day and

invoking power under Section 216 CrPC by the prosecution and on

the request of the prosecution by the Court are per se

unsustainable for the procedure is not properly adopted from what

is contemplated by the provisions and as held in the expressions of

the Apex Court in Anant Prakash Sinha Vs. State of Haryana &

Others1 and P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and Another2. It

is also needful to refer what is laid down by the Apex Court in

1
2016 (6) SCC 105
2
2017 (3) SCC 347
 7 Dr.SSRB,J
Crl.R.C.No.661 of 2017

Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Onother3 that

from even partial quashing of chargesheet, there is no bar for trial

court to invoke the power under Section 216 CrPC and holding

otherwise would render Section 216 otiose.

10. Having regard to the above, the revision petition is

allowed and impugned order of the lower Court allowing the

application of the prosecution filed under Section 216 CrPC in

Crl.M.P.No.378 of 2017 for framing additional charge under

Sections 406 & 420 IPC is held unsustainable and the same is set

aside and however it is left open to the learned Magistrate if at all

there is any necessity of framing any additional charges subject to

giving of reasons to do so only after hearing both sides within its

powers and once chosen to do so under Section 216 CrPC, the trial

Court is bound to recognize the right of parties under Section 217

CrPC to afford opportunity by recall of any witnesses for further

examination if even orally required by either side, for duty bound

by court to ask and permit by recall for further examination in

respect of the altered charge/s.

11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand

closed. No costs.

_____________________________________
JUSTICE Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
Date: 01.06.2017
ska

3
2013 (100) SCC 591