Dismissed¶17

Arjun v. State of U.P. and Another

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 quashing

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2025A482/40378/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 216 CrPC; alteration of charge; addition of charge; framing charge under Section 376 IPC beyond chargesheet; Section 482 CrPC quashing; abuse of process; Case Crime No. 114 of 2022; P.S. Babupurwa, Kanpur Nagar; Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 12; victim statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. One-line: Allahabad High Court dismissed a Section 482 CrPC petition against framing of an additional Section 376 IPC charge, holding that a court has ample power under Section 216 CrPC to alter any charge at any stage of the trial and that no abuse of process was occasioned.

What did the court decide?

Under Section 216 CrPC the Court has ample power to alter any charge at any stage of the trial. ¶15

Arjun Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40378 of 2024

¶3

Arjun

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Bed Kant Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 89

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Bed Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned AGA appearing for the State respondents.

¶8

Present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Case No. 1399 of 2022 (State vs. Arjun), arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 507 IPC, P.S. Babupurwa, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12 Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the order impugned passed by the trial Judge is erroneous and is abuse of process of the Court. It is further submitted that the chargesheet has not been submitted under Section 376 IPC but the trial Judge has proceeded to frame the charge under Section 376 IPC also. It is submitted that there is no allegation of commission of rape in the first information report as well as in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA submits that alteration of charge is at the discretion of the Court and when it appears to the Court that particular offence is made out from the statement of the witnesses, charge can be framed for the said commission of the offence.

¶11

Vide the order impugned herein the learned trial Judge has framed additional charge under Section 376 IPC against the applicant on the

¶12

A482 No. 40378 of 2024

¶13

¶14

application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 CrPC.

¶15

It is well settled that under Section 216 CrPC the Court has ample power to alter any charge at any state of the trial. The learned trial Judge has held that the victim has deposed before the trial Court that the applicant had committed rape on her.

¶16