Supreme Court allows alteration of charge under Section 216 CrPC in a case of alleged cheating: Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) INSC 47 (21 January 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 47
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a trial court alter charges at any point before the final judgment, even after evidence has been presented? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in this case. The court examined the scope of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows for alteration of charges, in the context of a case involving alleged cheating and breach of trust. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) filed on 10 March 2011, by the fourth respondent, the father-in-law of the appellant, Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy. The FIR alleged that Dr. Reddy and his family had harassed the complainant’s daughter for money and property. The complainant’s daughter married Dr. Reddy in 2003. In 2006, the FIR stated that Dr. Reddy and his family refused to allow the complainant’s daughter to join her husband in the United Kingdom unless her Stridhana property was transferred to them.

On 30 June 2012, a charge-sheet was filed against Dr. Reddy and his parents under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Subsequently, the investigating officer received additional information about the commission of other offenses by Dr. Reddy. Based on witness statements, it was alleged that Dr. Reddy had demanded Rs 5,00,000/- to secure a job for the complainant’s daughter as a doctor in the United Kingdom. An additional charge-sheet was filed on 12 April 2013, for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

The Trial Court initially framed charges only for the offenses mentioned in the original charge-sheet, i.e., Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was reserved for judgment on 13 February 2017. However, on the same day, the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for alteration of charge, pointing out that the additional charge-sheet for offences under Sections 406 and 420 was not considered. The Trial Court allowed this application on 21 February 2017, and framed additional charges.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant challenged the Trial Court’s order framing additional charges before the High Court. On 1 June 2017, the High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order, citing procedural irregularities, but allowed the Trial Court to consider framing additional charges after hearing both sides. Subsequently, on 11 October 2017, the Trial Court rejected the application for framing additional charges, stating that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC were not met.

The fourth respondent then filed a revision petition before the High Court against the Trial Court’s order. On 6 March 2019, the High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the Trial Court’s order. The High Court directed the framing of additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, based on witness statements and the additional charge-sheet. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states:

“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 adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.”

This section empowers the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The court must ensure that the accused is not prejudiced by such alteration or addition. If prejudice is likely, the court can either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial.

The other legal provisions involved are:

• Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Criminal breach of trust.
• Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Prohibition of giving or taking dowry.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The application for alteration of charge was filed intentionally on the date of judgment to delay proceedings.
• The FIR does not mention any demand or payment of Rs 5,00,000/- for securing a job.
• Both the fourth respondent and his daughter are doctors and aware that a doctor’s job cannot be secured in the United Kingdom without clearing an entrance test.
• PW 6, a friend of the fourth respondent, is an interested witness.
• PW 5, the brother-in-law of the fourth respondent, could not specify the date of the alleged payment and there is no documentary evidence to support the claim.
• The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are not fulfilled. There must be a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise to constitute cheating. The court should not delve into the probative value of the material at the stage of framing of charge.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The additional charge-sheet was already before the Trial Court since 2013, but it was kept in a separate docket and missed the attention of the Magistrate.
• A charge can be altered by the court at any time before the pronouncement of the judgment based on the materials available or subsequently brought on record during the course of the trial.
• At the time of framing of charge, it is sufficient if the court forms a presumption regarding the existence of ingredients constituting the offence based on the material placed before it.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in directing the Trial Court to frame additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, based on the materials available on record and the provisions of Section 216 of the CrPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court cited Onkar Nath Mishra v The State [2008] 2 SCC 561 to highlight that at the stage of framing of charge, the court needs to evaluate the material to see if the facts disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offense.
• The Court cited Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v State of Bihar [2000] 4 SCC 168 to emphasize that to hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.
• The Court cited Anant Prakash Sinha v State of Haryana [2016] 6 SCC 105 to support the point that the court can change or alter the charge if there is a defect or something is left out, based on the material available on record.
• The Court cited Sajjan Kumar v Central Bureau of Investigation [2010] 9 SCC 368 to state that 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 based on the material placed before it.
• The Court cited P Kartikalakshmi v Sri Ganesh [2017] 3 SCC 347 to support the point that Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced.
• The Court cited CBI v Karimullah Osan Khan [2014] 11 SCC 538 to support the point that Section 216 CrPC gives considerable power to the trial court, that is, even after the completion of evidence, arguments heard and the judgment reserved, it can alter and add to any charge.
• The Court cited Jasvinder Saini v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) [2013] 7 SCC 256 to reiterate that the court’s power to alter or add any charge is unrestrained provided such addition and/or alteration is made before the judgment is pronounced.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in directing the framing of additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The Court emphasized that Section 216 of the CrPC empowers the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The Court also stated that the test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a charge is that the material brought on record needs to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged offence.

The Court noted that the High Court had evaluated the material and evidence on record and found that there was sufficient material to suggest that the appellant had demanded Rs 5,00,000/- from the complainant to secure a job for his daughter and that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC were attracted.

The Court also clarified that the veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses is a question of trial and need not be determined at the time of framing of charge.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the trial proceedings to continue.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“… Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced.”

“… the court can change or alter the charge if there is defect or something is left out. The test is, it must be founded on the material available on record.”

“… 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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 216 of the CrPC, which grants broad powers to the court to alter or add charges at any time before judgment. The Court emphasized that this power is not limited by the stage of the trial, and can be exercised even after evidence has been presented and arguments have been heard. The Court also focused on the fact that the High Court had correctly evaluated the material on record and found a prima facie case for the additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. This shows that the Court was guided by the procedural aspect of law and the factual matrix of the case.

The Court also considered the fact that the additional charge-sheet was already before the Trial Court, but was not considered at the time of framing of charges. This shows that the Court was guided by the principle that all relevant materials should be considered while framing charges.

The Court also emphasized that at the stage of framing of charge, the court only needs to determine if there exists sufficient material for the commencement of trial, and it is not necessary to undertake an analysis of the credibility, veracity or evidentiary value of the materials placed before it. This shows that the Court was guided by the principle that the court should not delve into the probative value of the material at the stage of framing of charge.

Key Takeaways

• A trial court has the power to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced, as per Section 216 of the CrPC.
• The court can alter or add charges based on the material available on record, including the FIR, charge-sheet, and witness statements.
• At the stage of framing of charge, the court only needs to determine if there exists sufficient material for the commencement of trial, and it is not necessary to undertake an analysis of the credibility, veracity or evidentiary value of the materials placed before it.
• The court must ensure that the accused is not prejudiced by the alteration or addition of charges.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial proceedings pending before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli to continue.

Development of Law

The judgment reiterates the wide scope of Section 216 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the power to alter or add charges can be exercised at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The judgment also clarifies that at the stage of framing of charge, the court only needs to determine if there exists sufficient material for the commencement of trial, and it is not necessary to undertake an analysis of the credibility, veracity or evidentiary value of the materials placed before it. This is consistent with the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to direct the framing of additional charges against the appellant under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The Court reiterated the wide powers of the trial court under Section 216 of the CrPC to alter or add charges at any time before the pronouncement of the judgment, based on the material available on record. This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 216 of the CrPC and the principles to be followed while framing charges.