Dismissed

Shankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2025NA528/20848/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alteration of charge under S.216 Cr.P.C. after completion of prosecution evidence; insertion of "(2)" before S.376 IPC and S.3/4 POCSO Act in charge dated 16.08.2024; quashing application under S.528 BNSS (S.482 Cr.P.C. inherent jurisdiction) dismissed; age of victim; Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarnagar.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114800

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20848 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Impleadment application is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary impleadment in the array of parties.

¶7

Heard Sri J.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarnagar, whereby the trial court, while exercising its power under Section 216 Cr.P.C., altered the charges by adding "(2)" before Section 376 IPC in the second paragraph of the charge dated 16.08.2024, as well as "(2)" before Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act in the third paragraph of the charge.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court committed a manifest error in allowing the prosecution’s application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 06.05.2025 and passing the order to add "(2)" before Section 376 IPC in the second paragraph of the charge dated 16.08.2024, and likewise before Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act in the third paragraph of the charge, without properly considering the objection raised by the applicant. It is contended that the alteration of charges at such an advanced stage of the trial, after the completion of prosecution evidence, is not only prejudicial to the applicant but also legally unsustainable, particularly when the evidence on record does not conclusively establish that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, without recording any finding or satisfaction regarding the necessity or justification for such alteration, thereby causing serious miscarriage of justice to the applicant.

¶10

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the application and submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law after due consideration of the material available on record. It is further contended that the trial court has the power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter charges at any stage of the trial, and in the present case, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

It is evident that the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was moved after the prosecution evidence had been recorded, and the trial court, upon examining the material on record and the age of the victim had modified the sections in the charge. The objection raised by the applicant was considered by the trial court, and the order was passed thereafter.

¶13

This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 has been passed after due application of mind and on the basis of the material available on record. No illegality, irregularity, or impropriety has been demonstrated in the said order so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

¶14

Accordingly, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.7.2025 pks

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases