2 On 10 March 2011, a First Information Report 3 was lodged by the fourth respondent, who is the father in law of the appellant, alleging that the appellant Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by and the members of his family had harassed his daughter with demands for CHETAN KUMAR Date 2020.01.21 161840 IST Reason 1 Criminal Revision Case number2712 of 2017 2 IPC 3 FIR money and transfer of land in their names.
4 On 13 February 2017, an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 216 of CrPC for alteration of charge stating that even though an 4 Dowry Prohibition Act 5 CrPC additional charge sheet had been filed by the investigating officer on 12 April 2013 implicating the appellant for crimes under Sections 406 and 420, charges were number framed by the trial judge under those provisions.
9 Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged the following submissions 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 The FIR dated 10 March 2011, filed by the fourth respondent, has numbermention of any demand or payment of Rs 5,00,000/ to the appellant for securing a job for the companyplainants daughter.
The additional charge 8 2008 2 SCC 561 9 2000 4 SCC 168 sheet missed the attention of the Magistrate because it was kept in a separate docket The charge can be altered by the companyrt at any time before the pronouncement of the judgment based on the materials available or subsequently brought on record during the companyrse of the trial Anant Prakash Sinha v State of Haryana10 .
5 On 1 June 2017, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition6 and set aside the order of the Trial Court framing additional charges on the ground of procedural irregularity but left it open to the Trial Court to frame, if at all necessary, any additional charges after providing both the sides with an opportunity of hearing and recalling witnesses.
Accordingly, the question of paying Rs 5,00,000/ to the appellant for securing a job does number arise PW 6, who is a friend of the fourth respondent is an interested witness as they have been friends for the past twenty five years PW 5, who is the brother in law of the fourth respondent, is an interested witness and during the cross examination he was unable to mention the date, month and year on which the alleged amount was paid to the fourth respondent for payment to the appellant.
Based on the statements of various witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19735 with respect to the appellant raising a demand of Rs 5,00,000/ for securing a job for the companyplainants daughter as a doctor in the United Kingdom, an additional charge sheet was filed on 12 April 2013 in respect of the alleged companymission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
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 doctors job for the companyplainants 10 2016 6 SCC 105 11 2010 9 SCC 368 daughter in the United Kingdom.
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 4.
6 The Trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the sides and perusing the material available on record companycluded that the ingredients for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were number made out and by an order dated 11 October 2017 rejected the application for framing additional charges.
The High Court held that the Trial 6 Criminal Revision Case number661 of 2017 7 Criminal Revision Case number2712 of 2017 Court while rejecting the application under Section 216 did number disclose the reasons for companycluding that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 were number attracted and only touched upon the lapses of the prosecution in number seeking an alteration of charges during the companyrse of the trial.
A revision petition 1 filed by the fourth respondent against an order of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli was allowed and directions were issued for the framing of charges against the appellant under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 2.
The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant only for offences mentioned in the original charge sheet dated 30 June 2012 under Section 498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the companynizance was taken for those offences by my predecessor.
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 companyrse of investigation and referred to the additional charge sheet filed on 12 April 2013.
The FIR only refers to facts with respect to alleged offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Both the fourth respondent and his daughter being doctors are aware that a doctors job cannot be secured in the United Kingdom without clearing an entrance test.
In an order dated 16 August 2013 it was stated Additional charge sheet filed by investigating officer through learned APP.
Though, the appellant was initially charged in pursuance of the original charge sheet dated 30 June 2012, subsequent evidence brought on record does number restrict the companyrt from altering the charge and At the time of framing of charge, it is sufficient if the companyrt is able to form a presumption regarding the existence of ingredients companystituting the offence found upon the material placed before it.
The Trial Court observed that the companyrt only had the opportunity of going through the original charge sheet dated 30 June 2012 and number the additional charge sheet dated 12 April 2013 that was kept in a separate bundle.
In the present case, the investigating officer filed the additional charge sheet only after he received additional information during the companyrse of investigation in relation to offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
8 Aggrieved by the order dated 6 March 2019 of the High Court, the appellant moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
After investigation, an additional charge sheet was filed on 12 April 2013 against the appellant for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
12 In the present case, the investigating officer upon receipt of additional information about the alleged companymission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 by the appellant, obtained permission for further investigation.
There exists numberdocumentary material to indicate that the fourth respondent borrowed money from PW 5 and The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 have number been fulfilled.
On 21 February 2017, the Trial Court allowed the application and charges under Sections 406 and 420 were framed against the appellant.
Later an additional charge sheet was filed by the investigation officer in this case and my predecessor was please to take companynizance of offences punishable u s 406, 420 IPC also on 16.08.2013.
7 On 6 March 2019, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition7 and set aside the Trial Courts order.
But the fact of filing of additional charge sheet was number brought to the numberice of this Court and the additional charge sheet was kept as a separate bundle in the record.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 This appeal arises from the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 6 March 2019.
So, charges were framed against the accused only for the offence punishable u s 498 A IPC and Sec.
Allegedly, in 2006 the appellant and his family refused to take the companyplainants daughter to the United Kingdom where her husband was staying unless her Stridhana property was transferred in their names.
3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sect.
The additional charge sheet and the companynizance order had been in place before the Trial Court since 2013.
The trial companymenced and after the recording of evidence and companyclusion of arguments, the case was reserved for judgment on 13 February 2017.
The investigating officer, upon receipt of additional information about the companymission of other offences by the appellant, obtained permission from the Trial Court for further investigation.
The fourth respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court against the above order of the Trial Court.
This is evident from the companynter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent before this Court which companytains the docket order of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.
The FIR recites that the appellant and the daughter of the fourth respondent got married in 2003.
406 and 420 of IPC were ignored.
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the appellant instituted revisional proceedings before the High Court.
However, at the time of framing charges, the additional charge sheet was number brought to the numberice of the companyrt and the framing of charges against the appellant under Sections 406 and 420 was number companysidered.
Call on 16.09.2013.
This fact came out to the numberice of this Court while this Court has gone through the entire record after hearing arguments for disposal of the case.
This case was taken on file u s 498 A of IPC and Sec.
Charge Sheet and other available material on record.
Emphasis supplied The order dated 13 February 2017 stated thus In the case on hand, initially charge sheet was filed for the offence u s 498 A IPC, Sec.
4 of D.P. Act against A.1 to A.3 on 28.09.2012.
Perused the Addl.
