The court emphasizes its exclusive authority to alter charges and dismisses accused's plea for alteration under Section 216 CrPC and Section 239 BNSS.
In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court, the application filed by Praveen Pal seeking alteration of charges under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was dismissed. The court reaffirmed that the power to alter or add charges rests solely with the court and cannot be invoked as a matter of right by any party, including the accused.
Praveen Pal had approached the High Court to challenge the rejection of his application by the Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Kanpur Dehat. The application sought to alter charges framed against him under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC, and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, arguing that the victim was not a minor at the time of the alleged incident, thereby questioning the applicability of certain charges.
The High Court meticulously examined the legal provisions under Section 216 CrPC and Section 239 BNSS, which empower the court to alter or add charges at any stage before the judgment is pronounced. However, it underscored that this power is exclusive to the court and cannot be exercised upon application by the accused or any other party as a matter of right.
The judgment cited several Supreme Court rulings, including P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, to support its stance that no party has a vested right to seek alteration of charges through an application. The court asserted that the trial court is the sole authority to determine the appropriateness of charges based on the evidence and materials presented during the trial.
In the case at hand, the trial court had already framed charges after rejecting the accused's discharge application. The High Court held that the trial court's decision was not erroneous, as the accused's attempt to alter charges was deemed misconceived. The court reiterated that the provision under Section 216 CrPC is intended to ensure a fair trial and must be exercised judiciously by the court itself, without external influence from the parties involved.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS filed by Praveen Pal, affirming the trial court's rejection of his plea for charge alteration and underscoring the principle that judicial processes cannot be derailed by applications that lack merit.
Bottom line:-
Section 216 CrPC and Section 239 B.N.S.S. empower the court to alter or add charges at any time before the judgment is pronounced. However, no party, including the accused, has the right to seek such alteration or addition as a matter of right by filing an application.
Statutory provision(s): Section 216 CrPC, Section 239 BNSS, Section 528 BNSS, Section 376 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Section 227 CrPC, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Praveen Pal v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2894736
