Dismissed¶20

Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025CRLR/7718/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 216 Cr.P.C. alteration or addition of charge; power exclusively with the court, exercisable only suo motu; no party (de facto complainant, accused, prosecution) has vested right to seek alteration of charge; FIR under Section 302 IPC, charge sheet under Section 304 IPC; five prosecution witnesses; application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. rejected; revision dismissed as not maintainable; Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 911; P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh Criminal Appeal No. 1709 of 2014; Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court, November 21, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The instant revision is not maintainable because no party has any right to seek alteration of charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C.; it is therefore rejected. ¶20

Aas Mohammad vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7718 of 2025

Aas Mohammad

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 9 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Keshari Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 91

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.GA. for the State.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the FIR had been lodged under Section 302 whereas the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 304 IPC. He has further submitted that prosecution has produced five witnesses in the said case. Thereafter he filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of the charge from Section 304 IPC to 302 IPC

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has contended that the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶10

Section 216 Cr.P.C. is as follows:

¶11

"216. Court may alter charge- (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

¶12

(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.

¶13

(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.

¶14

(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.

¶15

(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded."

¶16

CRLR No. 7718 of 2025

¶17

¶18

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in Thakur Ram and others vs. State of Bihar , reported in AIR 1966 SC 911 ; that the power available under Section 216 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only by the court on its own and no party has any right to seek for passing any order under the said provisions.

¶19

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held on August 12, 2014 in Criminal Appeal No.1709 of 2014 titled P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh and another that the power of invocation of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusively confined with the court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment, we make it clear 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, because it is not provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. If such a course to be adopted by the parties, is allowed, then it will be well nigh impossible for the criminal court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy trial will get jeopardized.

¶20

With the above observation, the instant revision is not maintainable and it is rejected accordingly.

¶21

November 21, 2025 M. Tarik

¶22

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faizan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Singh Som vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammd Anas Khan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kumar Thakur vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Netrapal vs State of U.P. and Another