Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Order Allowing Charge Alteration in Satyam Sharma Case

Court Reiterates Exclusive Power to Alter Charges Lies with Judiciary, Not Parties

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided by Justice Abdul Shahid, quashed an order by the Additional District Judge in Varanasi that allowed an application for altering charges against Satyam Sharma under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The court reaffirmed that the power to alter or add charges before the pronouncement of judgment is an exclusive prerogative of the court, and no party has the legal right to seek such changes.

The case, Criminal Revision No. 1202 of 2025, saw Satyam Sharma challenging the decision of the trial court which permitted the complainant, Munna Lal Goswami, to file an application for altering charges against him. The charges initially included offenses under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The revisionist, through his counsel Ajeet Kumar Madhesia, argued that the trial court committed a legal error by allowing the complainant's application for charge alteration, which is not permissible under Section 216 Cr.P.C. The counsel emphasized that the section is an enabling provision for the court alone, and neither the complainant nor the accused can invoke it for altering charges.

Justice Shahid, in his judgment, referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar and P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh, underscoring that Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers only the court to alter or add charges based on its own discretion and observations during the trial. The court emphasized that allowing parties to seek such alterations would disrupt the process of a speedy trial.

The judgment highlighted that the power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is intended to correct omissions in charge framing that come to the court's notice, thereby ensuring justice without unnecessary delays. The court asserted that the application filed by the complainant was not maintainable, leading to the setting aside of the trial court's order dated February 21, 2025.

The decision of the Allahabad High Court reinforces the judiciary's control over the trial process, ensuring that alterations in charges are made judiciously and not at the behest of parties involved. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for similar cases where parties seek charge alterations during the trial process.

Bottom Line:

Section 216 Cr.P.C. provides exclusive power to the court to alter or add charges before judgment is pronounced; no party has the right to seek alteration or addition of charges under this section.

Statutory provision(s): Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Satyam Sharma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811654