The Allahabad High Court has clarified that an accused person has no legal right to file an application seeking alteration or addition of charges under Section 216 CrPC after charges have been framed. The judgment reinforces that this power is exclusively vested in the trial court and cannot be invoked as a matter of right by any party, including the accused.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Praveen Pal, was charged under Sections 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act in connection with alleged sexual assault and blackmail of a female victim. The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on 15.02.2022 at Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat, alleging that the applicant raped the victim six to seven years prior and made an obscene video of her, followed by blackmail and administration of a medicine leading to miscarriage.
Key Facts
- The victim, born on 17.07.1997, was 18 years, 7 months, and 26 days old on the alleged incident date of 13.03.2016, as per her school certificate.
- In the FIR, the victim claimed to be 16 years old at the time of the incident.
- During her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 18.02.2022, she stated she was 25 years old.
- In her examination-in-chief on 23.06.2023, 11.03.2024, and 03.04.2024, she confirmed the incident occurred on 13.03.2016, making her a major at the time.
- The medical report indicated her age as approximately 25 years at the time of trial.
- The applicant argued that since the victim was a major, the POCSO Act was inapplicable and sought alteration of charges from POCSO Act and Section 376(3) IPC to Section 376 IPC only.
Procedural History
- 15.02.2022: FIR registered under Sections 376, 313, 354, 452, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act.
- 17.04.2022: Charge-sheet submitted by Investigating Officer.
- 27.03.2023: Trial court rejected applicant’s discharge application under Section 227 CrPC.
- 05.04.2023: Charges framed against applicant under Sections 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act.
- 10.03.2025: Applicant filed application under Section 216 CrPC / Section 239 BNSS seeking alteration of charges.
- 19.05.2025: Trial court rejected the application.
- 08.05.2026: Present application under Section 528 BNSS filed before Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the order dated 19.05.2025.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the trial court’s order dated 19.05.2025 rejecting his application under Section 216 CrPC / Section 239 BNSS, and a direction to alter the charges to exclude the POCSO Act provisions, given the victim’s age at the time of the incident.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused person file an application under Section 216 CrPC or Section 239 BNSS to seek alteration of charges after the trial court has framed charges and rejected his discharge application under Section 227 CrPC?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that since the victim was a major at the time of the incident (aged 18 years 7 months), the POCSO Act was inapplicable. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police to contend that the charge under POCSO Act was legally unsustainable and that Section 216 CrPC permits alteration of charges at any stage before judgment. He submitted that the trial court’s refusal to alter the charge was erroneous and violated his right to a fair trial.
For the Respondent/State
The State and the victim’s counsel opposed the application, arguing that Section 216 CrPC does not confer any right on the accused to seek alteration of charges. They relied on P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu to assert that the power to alter charges is exclusively vested in the court and cannot be invoked by any party as a matter of right. They contended that the applicant’s application was a disguised attempt to re-agitate his discharge plea, which had already been dismissed, and was filed solely to delay the trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 216 CrPC and its counterpart under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Section 239, noting their identical language and intent. It emphasized that while the provision permits the court to alter or add charges at any time before judgment, it does not create a right for any party to demand such alteration.
"The power vested in the Court is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right."
The Court cited P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh to underscore that allowing parties to file such applications would undermine the principle of speedy trial and invite procedural abuse. It further referenced K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, where the Supreme Court condemned the routine practice of accused filing Section 216 applications after discharge applications are rejected, calling it a tactic to derail trials.
The Court observed that the applicant had already been denied discharge under Section 227 CrPC, and the charges were duly framed after considering the material on record. The applicant’s subsequent application under Section 216 CrPC was not a genuine request for correction of an omission, but a re-litigation of the same issue. The trial court correctly held that it was not obligated to entertain such an application.
The Court also noted that even if the victim’s age was in question, the determination of whether she was a minor or major was a factual issue to be decided on evidence at trial, not a ground for altering charges at the behest of the accused. The court’s power under Section 216 CrPC is triggered only when the court itself identifies an omission or defect in the charge based on the record - not when a party requests it.
The Verdict
The application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order dated 19.05.2025 rejecting the applicant’s application under Section 216 CrPC / Section 239 BNSS. The Court held that no party, including the accused, has a right to seek alteration of charges by filing an application. The trial court’s refusal to entertain the application was legally correct. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Charge Alteration Is a Judicial Discretion, Not a Litigant’s Right
- Practitioners must advise clients that applications under Section 216 CrPC or Section 239 BNSS cannot be filed as a matter of right, even if the charge appears legally unsustainable.
- Any request for charge alteration must originate from the court’s own observation of a defect or omission in the charge, based on the record.
Post-Discharge Applications Are Procedurally Barred
- An accused who fails to secure discharge under Section 227 CrPC cannot circumvent that outcome by filing a Section 216 application seeking charge alteration.
- Such applications will be treated as vexatious and may invite adverse costs or contempt proceedings if found to be dilatory.
Courts Must Resist Procedural Abuse
-
Trial courts are directed to scrutinize applications under Section 216 CrPC for signs of tactical delay.
-
Where an application is clearly a rehash of a rejected discharge plea, it should be summarily dismissed without detailed hearing.
-
The judgment reinforces that the purpose of Section 216 CrPC is to ensure fair trial, not to provide a second chance to accused persons to challenge the framing of charges.
-
Legal practitioners must now focus on challenging charges at the discharge stage, not after framing, as the latter avenue is legally closed.
