- The Supreme Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora (2025). held that the power under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot be invoked to delete charges already framed against an accused, as it can only be used to add or alter the existing charges.
153. A few High Courts have also rightly taken the view that an application under Section 216 CrPC cannot lead to the deletion of charge or the discharge of an accused. In a relatively recent decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Dev Narain v. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 3216, it was stated that a prayer for discharge cannot be sustained in an application under Section 216 CrPC. Herein the sole-accused moved an application for discharge and the same was rejected. The application under Section 482 CrPC filed before the High Court was also dismissed but with the observation that “it is open to the applicant to move an application for alteration of charge under Section 216 CrPC before the Trial Court”. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961. After the evidence of PW-1 was recorded, the accused moved an application under Section 216 CrPC for alteration of charge and the same also came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. The High Court stated that the alteration of charge and deletion of charge hold different field and that these two cannot be intermingled. A perusal of the prayer made by the accused in the 216 CrPC application indicated that it was, in essence, a prayer for discharge and quashing of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, it was held that such a power to delete charges is not conferred on the Court under Section 216 CrPC. It was added that a charge once framed, it must lead either to an acquittal or conviction at the end of the trial and charges cannot be permitted to be deleted mid-trial. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“9. From perusal of above, is apparent that the Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced but alteration of charge and deletion of charge hold different field and these two cannot be intermingled, otherwise it will cause miscarriage of justice. This is admitted fact that the discharge application moved by the revisionist was dismissed by the trial court and the criminal revision moved by the revisionist against rejection of discharge application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2017 in Criminal Revision No. 2500 of 2017, wherein this Court observed that the instant criminal revision is finally disposed of with a direction that in case, the revisionist is aggrieved with regard to the framing of the charge as on date, he may file an appropriate application at the appropriate stage when the evidence is to be produced with regard to the alteration of charge and in case, such an application is filed, the same shall be heard and decided in accordance with law after hearing all parties concerned.
10. The charge has been framed against the accused by the court below under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act. The evidence of PW-1 Vibhuti Bhushan Garg was recorded on 1.9.2017 to 29.5.2018 and thereafter the present application under Section 216 Cr. P.C. has been filed for alteration of charge. [...]
11. From perusal of prayer made in application under Section 216 Cr. P.C., it appears in essence that this is a prayer for discharge as the revisionist has stated that he may be discharged from charged penal sections and the charges levelled against him be quashed. The trial court in exercise of its powers under Section 216 Cr. P.C. cannot delete the charges framed by it for the said offences as the criminal procedure code does not confers such powers on the court. The trial court can only alter to a charge or to add to a charge, which has already framed. The discharge application moved by the revisionist has already been dismissed and said order has attained finality.
xxx xxx xxx
14. This Court in the case of Vibhuti Narayan Chaubey Alias v. State of U.P., 2003 Cri LJ 196 held that Section 216 of the code did not provide for deletion of a charge and that the word “delete” had intentionally not being used by the legislature.
I am in agreement with this conclusion. The petitioner is seeking the deletion of a charge of conspiracy altogether that is not permissible under Section 216 of the Code. The charge once framed must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of trial. Section 216 of the Code does not permit the deletion of the same. Subsequently, Delhi High Court in the case of Verghese Stephen v. Central Bureau Of Investigation, 2007 Cri LJ 4080, placed reliance on aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Vibhuti Narayan Chaubey (supra).” (Emphasis supplied)
154. We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 228 CrPC, the accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers under Sections 227 or 216 CrPC. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 CrPC provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment