The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, framing charges in a petition filed by the Prosecution under section 216 CrPC and observed that this provision does not give scope either to the prosecution or to the accused to seek alteration of a charge.

The Criminal Petition was filed challenging the order on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge – Cum – Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women at Chittoor.

The Single Bench of Justice Harinath. N stated, “It is equally surprising to note that the learned Sessions Judge had altered the charges as suggested by the prosecution in their petition filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C., in toto. Such a procedure is unknown to criminal jurisprudence. On these grounds, the order passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Chittoor deserves to be set aside.”

Advocate D.Purnachandra Reddy represented the Petitioner-Accused while the Public Prosecutor represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner arraigned as the first Accused was aggrieved by the order passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge – Cum – Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women at Chittoor on a petition filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Sessions Judge had allowed the petition filed by the prosecution and reframed the charges against the accused persons.

Arguments

It was the case of the Peititoner that under Section 216 CrPC, it is the exclusive power of the Court to alter charge and there could not have been an occasion for the investigating officer to file a petition seeking alternation of charge. It was submitted that the petition seeking alteration of charges was filed at a very belated stage after the examination of as many as 56 prosecution witnesses was completed.


On the contrary, it was the case of the State that the investigating officer realized that charges were not framed appropriately against the accused and as such filed a petition before the Sessions Judge seeking indulgence of Court to frame additional charges. It was also submitted that the accused are delaying the trial and the prosecution only intends to frame appropriate charges against the accused and try them for the said offence.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that Section 216 of Cr.P.C., confers an exclusive right on the Court to alter the charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment. This does not give scope either to the prosecution or to the accused to seek alteration of a charge or addition of a new charge and file an application with a prayer to the Court to invoke the provisions of Section 216.

“If the power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., is to be invoked by the Court, there is no scope for filing a petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C., either by the prosecution or on behalf of the accused. If Section 216 Cr.P.C., is invoked by the prosecution or the accused there cannot be an end for any trial before any Court. If the parties to a litigation are allowed to invoke Section 216 of Cr.P.C., the very purpose of incorporating Section 216 Cr.P.C., in the Code would be defeated. If the parties misuse it, it would delay the conclusion of the trial, and the same would be beyond the scope of the Court to conclude any trial in any case”, it said.

The Bench also held, “The law on this issue is settled and power of the Court is exclusive and power of the Court to alter or add a charge is exclusively with the Court and no party is required to file a petition praying the Court to invoke the powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.”

The Court found it surprising that the investigating officer had already altered/framed charges which were required to be altered/framed by the court. The proposed altered charges were incorporated in the petition filed by the investigating officer.

Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Sriram Chandra Sekhar @ Chintu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3424 OF 2025)

Appearance:

Peititoner: Advocate D.Purnachandra Reddy

Respondent: Public Prosecutor, Advocate P.Sai Surya Teja

Click here to read/download Order


Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice Harinath. N

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.