LexANANT PRAKASH SINHA @ ANANT SINHA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016) 2 S.C.R. 128 ANANT PRAKASH SINHA @ ANANT SINHA v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 131 of2016) MARCH 4, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.216 - Addition or alteration of charge - Power of court - Held: Court has authority to alter or add the charge if there is a defect or somethi11g is left out - It ca11 be 011 the basis of complai11t or FIR or accompanying documents or material brought on record during the course of trial - Also, it is obligatory on the part of court to see that no prejudice is caused to the accused and he is al/011•ed to have a fair trial - In the instant case, informa11t-11•ife filed a case uls . ./98A agai11st appella11t-husba11d - When the matter was pending before magistrate she filed a11 applicatio11 u/s. 216 for framing a11 additional charge u!s . ./06 !PC agai11st the appellant-husba11d -- Magistrate allowed the application after referring to the materials and ajier recording his prima facie satisfaction - There was no error in the said prima facie view. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: If the court has not framed a charge despite the material on record, it has the jurisdiction to add a charge. Similarly, it has the authority to alter the charge. The principle that has to he kept in mind is that the charge so framed hy the Magistrate is in accord with the materials produced before him or if subsequent evidence comes on record. Another aspect to he kept in mind is that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see that no prejudice is caused to the accused and he is allowed to have a fair trial. There are in-built safeguards in Section 216 CrPC. It is the duty of the trial court to hear in mind that no prejudice is caused to the accused as that has the potentiality to affect a fair trial. The instant case docs not pertain to trial or any area by which a private lawyer takes control of the proceedings. As is evident, an application was filed by the 128 ANANT PRAKASH SINHA@ ANANT SINHA v. STATE OF 129 HA RY ANA informant to add a charge under Section 406 IPC as there were A allegations against the husband about the criminal breach of trust as far as her stridlum was concerned. It was, in a way, bringing to the notice of the Magistrate about the defect in framing of the charge. The court could have done it suo motu. In such a situation, there was no fault on the part of Magistrate in entertaining the B said application. It may he stated that the Magistrate has referred to the materials and recorded his prima facie satisfaction. There is no error in the said prin111 f11cie view. The order of the High Court in expressing its disinclination to interfere with the order passed in revision is affirmed. The entire scrutiny is only for the purpose of framing of charge and nothing else. The Magistrate C will proceed with the trial and decide the matter as per the evidence brought on record and shall not be influenced by any observations made as the same have to be restricted for the purpose of testing the legal defensibility of the impugned order. [Paras 16, 17, 20] 1140-B-D; 143-C-G] Amar Singh v. State qf Haryana (1974) 3 SCC 81 - relied on. Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand and another (1999) 7 SCC 467: 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 81 - Distinguished. D CBI v. Karimul/ah Osan Khan (2014) 11 SCC 538: 2014 E (3) SCR 588; Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and others (2004) 5 SCC 347: 2004 (3) SCR 762; Jasvinder Saini and others v. State (Government of NCI of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256: 2013 (7) SCR 340; Harihar Chakravarty v. State of West F Bengal AIR 1954 SC 266; Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2013) IO SCC 591: 2013 (14) SCR 213 Poonam and am: v. State of Punjab CRR 657 of 2015 [High Court of Punjab and Haryana]; Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 3 SCC 166: 1970 (2) SCR 742; Rajbir alias G Raju and anr. v. State of Hmyana (2010) 15 SCC 116: 2010 (13) SCR 886; Thakur Shah v. King Emperor AIR 1943 PC 192; Bhimanna v. State of Kamataka (2012) 9 SCC 650: 2012 (7) SCR 909 - referred to. H 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 2 S.C.R. A Case Law Reference 2014 (3) SCR588 referred to. Para4 2004 (3) SCR 762 referred to. Para4 2013 (7) SCR340 referred! to. Para4 B 2013 (14) SCR 213 referred to. Para6 AIR 1954 SC 266 referred to. Para 6 _1970 (2) SCR 742 referred to. Para 10
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.