Lal Singh vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P. at Lucknow and Another

The revisionist, has filed the present criminal revision being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2025, passed in Session Trial No. 2115 of 2022 ( State Vs. Sapna Soni), arising out of Case Crime No. 306 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh, whereby the application for alteration of charge has been rejected.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he has filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. (14-Ka) that the charges shall be converted from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC. He has submitted that the FIR has been lodged under Section 302 and 120-B IPC against the four accused (1) Sapna Soni, (2) Rakesh Kumar, (3) Surjeet Singh Barnala and (4) Kusum. Whereas after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed only under section 306 IPC against the sole accusedSapna Soni.

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the statement of PW-1 is already recorded on 12.1.2023 and the statement of PW-2 has been recorded on 20.6.2024. Hence, as per available evidence, the charges has to be converted or altered from 306 IPC to 302 IPC. The said application has been illegally rejected by the trial court vide impugned order dated 17.10.2025.

¶15

Learned trial court has held that after perusal of the FIR, it appears that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed only against accused-Sapna Soni under section 306 IPC. The court taken cognizance against Sapna Soni and framed charge against her under Section 306 IPC on 21.12.2022. Learned trial court further held that as per the witnesses produced by the prosecution, there are 18 witnesses, but till at this stage, the prosecution has produced only two witnesses. The statement of other witnesses of said offence is yet to be produced/recorded. Hence, at this stage, the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C (14 Kha) is per-mature, hence it is disposed of.

¶16

CRLR No. 7936 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he is confining his argument up to the limit that neither parties are having the legal-right as per provisions of law to move an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Section 216 Cr.P.C. is as follows:

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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."

¶23

Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It may be that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge of the court, the power is always vested in the court, as provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is an enabling provision for the court to exercise its power under certain contingencies, which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. In such a situation, 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. After such alteration or addition, when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work-out their remedies, in accordance with law.

¶24

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.

¶25

CRLR No. 7936 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

The learned trial court has rejected the application (14 Kha) as premature at that stage. The court is having liberty to alter charge, if deem fit in accordance with Section 216 Cr.P.C at any stage. Hence, in view of settled law, the court has every right and opportunity to frame charge, if it finds deem fit. It is prerogative of the court.

¶28

With the observation and findings, the present criminal revision is finally disposed of. Learned trial court, if at any appropriate stage find it suitable that the charge has to be altered, the court is free to do the same under Section 216 Cr.P.C.

¶29

The criminal revision stands disposed of.

¶30

December 3, 2025 sfa/

¶31

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lal Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P. at Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P. at Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramashray Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Jaiswal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikhil @ Nikki and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunena Kumari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Agarwal vs State of Up and Another