The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 216 of Criminal Procedure Code, a trial court can only alter the charge or add to the charge which is already framed. It cannot delete a charge which has been already framed by it, said the court. This was in the case of KM And KC & ANR (CRL.R.P. NO. 919 OF 2022) and was presided over a single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On the complaint of petitioner, a case was registered against the respondent no.1, who is her husband, in Crime no.47/2021 by Bommanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 354(A), 354(C), 376(2)(f) of IPC and under Section 4 & 6(N) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The police after investigation had filed a charge sheet against the respondent no.1 for the aforesaid offences and the case was numbered as Spl.C.C.No.649/2021 before the Special Court. In the said case an application was filed by the respondent no.1 – accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 14.02.2022. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent no.1 for the aforesaid offences. After framing of charges, the respondent filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C, for altering the charges and a prayer was made to delete the charges framed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 4 & 6(N) of the POCSO Act. The prosecution had not seriously opposed the said application before the Trial Court and the Trial Court by the order impugned dated 16.06.2022 had allowed the said application and being aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant who is the mother of victim girl has approached this Court in this revision petition.
JUDGEMENT:
The Court held that, “Merely for the reason that the Trial Court while passing an order on the application filed by the respondent under Section 227 of Cr.P.C had made an observation that there was no sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons for certain offences, the Trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C cannot delete the charges framed by it for the said offences as the criminal procedure code does not confer such a power on the Court. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed by the accused under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRATIKSHYA P. BEURA
