TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....["FIR"] was lodged by the fourth respondent, who is the father-in-law of the appellant, alleging that the appellant and the members of his family had harassed his daughter with demands for money and transfer of land in their names. The FIR recites that the appellant and the daughter of the fourth respondent got married in 2003. Allegedly, in 2006 the appellant and his family refused to take the complainant's daughter to the United Kingdom where her husband was staying unless her Stridhana property was transferred in their names. 3 On 30 June 2012, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his parents for offences under Section 498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 ["Dowry Prohibition Act"]. The investigating officer, upon receipt of additional information about the commission of other offences by the appellant, obtained permission from the Trial Court for further investigation. Based on the statements of various witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ["CrPC"] with respect to the appellant raising a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- for securing a job for the complainant's daughter as a doctor in the United Kingdom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under Section 216 did not disclose the reasons for concluding that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 were not attracted and only touched upon the lapses of the prosecution in not seeking an alteration of charges during the course of the trial. The High Court while directing the framing of additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC evaluated the witness statements brought on record during the course of investigation and referred to the additional charge-sheet filed on 12 April 2013. 8 Aggrieved by the order dated 6 March 2019 of the High Court, the appellant moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 9 Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged the following submissions: (a) An application for alteration of charge under Section 216 was intentionally filed on the date of the pronouncement of judgment to unnecessarily delay the proceedings; (b) The FIR dated 10 March 2011, filed by the fourth respondent, has no mention of any demand or payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the appellant for securing a job for the complainant's daughter. The FIR only refers to facts with respect to alleged offences under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l information during the course of investigation in relation to offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Though, the appellant was initially charged in pursuance of the original chargesheet dated 30 June 2012, subsequent evidence brought on record does not restrict the court from altering the charge; and (c) At the time of framing of charge, it is sufficient if the court is able to form a presumption regarding the existence of ingredients constituting the offence found upon the material placed before it. It is not necessary for the court to undertake an analysis of the credibility, veracity or evidentiary value of the materials placed before it (Sajjan Kumar v Central Bureau of Investigation [(2010) 9 SCC 368]). 11 The rival submissions fall for our consideration. 12 In the present case, the investigating officer upon receipt of additional information about the alleged commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 by the appellant, obtained permission for further investigation. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC indicated that the appellant had raised a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- for securing a doctor's job for the complainant's daughter in the U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was when an application under Section 216 of CrPC was filed by the public prosecutor on 13 February 2017 that it was brought to the notice of the Trial Judge that charges under Sections 406 and 420 were not framed. 14 In order to adjudicate upon the dispute, it is necessary to refer to Section 216 of CrPC: "216. Court may alter charge.-(1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. (3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the court may either direct a new trial or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or 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, as provided under Section 216 CrPC to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 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. In such a situation, if it comes to the knowledge of the Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need to be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or addition when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law." (Emphasis supplied) 17 In Anant Prakash Sinha v State of Haryana [(2016) 6 SCC 105], a two judge Bench of this Court dealt with a situation where for commission of offences under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC, an application was filed for framing an additional charge under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de and can be exercised, in appropriate cases, in the interest of justice, but at the same time, the courts should also see that its orders would not cause any prejudice to the accused. 18. Section 216 CrPC confers jurisdiction on all courts, including the Designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced and sub-sections (2) to (5) prescribe the procedure which has to be followed after that addition or alteration. Needless to say, the courts can exercise the power of addition or modification of charges under Section 216 CrPC, only when there exists some material before the court, which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified. In other words, alteration or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during the course of trial before the court." (Emphasis supplied) 19 In Jasvinder Saini v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 7 SCC 256], this Court dealt with the question whether the Trial Court was justified in adding a charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused persons who were charged under Section 304B of the IPC. Justice T S T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is allowed to have a fair trial. The only constraint on the court's power is the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused by the addition or alteration of charges. Sub-Section (4) accordingly prescribes the approach to be adopted by the courts where prejudice may be caused. 21 The appellant has relied upon a two-judge Bench decision of this Court in Onkar Nath Mishra v The State [(2008) 2 SCC 561] to substantiate the point that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC have not been established. This Court while dealing with the nature of evaluation by a court at the stage of framing of charge, held thus: "11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. A....