Accused Has No Right To Seek Alteration Of Charge Under Section 216 CrPC: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently reaffirmed that the power to alter or add charges under the criminal procedure code is an exclusive prerogative of the trial court, and no party can demand such modification as a matter of right. This clarification came while dismissing a plea filed by an accused seeking to alter charges framed under the POCSO Act by claiming the victim was a major at the time of the incident.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh presided over the matter, evaluating the scope of judicial discretion in charge modification. The court noted that applications for alteration of charges are often used as tools to delay trial proceedings, especially after discharge applications have been dismissed. The bench emphasized that the primary objective of such provisions is to ensure a fair trial, not to provide a second window for discharge under the guise of modification.

Judicial Prerogative and Party Rights

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is now well settled that 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. It may be that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge of the Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in the Court... to either alter or add the charge... It is an enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice."

While analyzing the maintainability of the applicant's request, the Court referred to several precedents. It cited P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh and another to establish that parties do not have a vested right to seek addition or alteration of charges. Furthermore, the court looked at K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another ( "2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 676), which highlighted the deplorable practice of filing vexatious applications under Section 216 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to derail trials after failing to secure a discharge under Section 227.

Legal Framework under BNSS and CrPC

The court compared Section 216 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with its successor, Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, noting they are identical in substance. It also discussed the principles summarized in Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana and Another and Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. ( "(2020) 12 SCC 467": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1688) regarding the wide-ranging powers of the court to ensure charges are in accord with the material on record. Referring to Director of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and others, the court reiterated that even if an application for alteration is filed, it is not incumbent upon the trial court to pass an order if it does not see the necessity for modification.

Background:

The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged in 2022 against Praveen Pal, alleging he had committed rape against a victim several years prior. The victim claimed she was 16 years old at the time of the incident. However, during the trial, the applicant moved an application under Section 216 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that as per the victim's High School certificate and her statements in court, she was over 18 years old when the alleged incident occurred in 2016.

The applicant sought the alteration of charges from Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act to regular rape provisions, claiming the POCSO Act was inapplicable. The trial court rejected this application on May 19, 2025, leading to the challenge before the High Court. The High Court found that since the applicant's discharge plea had already been rejected, this second attempt under the guise of charge alteration was legally untenable. The court also relied on Thakur Ram and others vs. State of Bihar ( "AIR 1966 SC 911": 1965 CaseBase(SC) 142) to emphasize that only the court can exercise this power suo motu.

Case Details:
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25601 of 2025
Case Title: Praveen Pal Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Arun Kumar Singh, Himanshu Singh
For the Respondent(s): Dipak Srivastava, G.A.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 176