# Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1239
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-27
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 4003 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50164
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Inherent power , Section 319 - Power
to
proceed
against
other
persons
appearing to be guilty of offence - much
stronger evidence than mere possibility
of complicity is required in the cases,
where the trial court is invoking the
jurisdiction under section 319 of Cr.P.C.
while summoning the accused - power
given to the court under section 319 of
Cr.P.C.
is
a
discretionary
and
extraordinary - should be exercised
sparingly and further it is not to be
exercised in supine and cavalier manner
-
strong
and
cogent
evidence
is
warranted
for
test
of
degree
of
satisfaction.(Para - 27)
Application under section 319 Cr.P.C. - trial
court summoned applicant - statements of P.W.-
1 to P.W.-3 mentioned in verbatim in the order -
recorded prima-facie case against applicant -
thus applicant summoned - Initially named in
initial
information
report
-
investigation
expunged - no material evidence found - final
report
submitted
-
without
applicant
involvement. (Para - 25)

HELD:-Trial court found prima-facie, a case
against applicant. No such finding or the degree
of satisfaction recorded that there are much
stronger case available against the applicant.
Trial court ignored the law enunciated by the
Apex Court. Impugned order set aside. Matter
remitted back to trial court to take a fresh
decision. (Para - 29,30,31)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

## Text

5 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1239

22. On the basis of facts and
circumstances, it is concluded that this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not
maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
However, remedy is open to the applicants
for filing an appeal under Section 14-A of
the S.C / S.T Act.

23. This Application under Section
482, is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1239
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 4003 of 2023

Ashok Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ravi Kant Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Inherent power , Section 319 - Power
to
proceed
against
other
persons
appearing to be guilty of offence - much
stronger evidence than mere possibility
of complicity is required in the cases,
where the trial court is invoking the
jurisdiction under section 319 of Cr.P.C.
while summoning the accused - power
given to the court under section 319 of
Cr.P.C.
is
a
discretionary
and
extraordinary - should be exercised
sparingly and further it is not to be
exercised in supine and cavalier manner
-
strong
and
cogent
evidence
is
warranted
for
test
of
degree
of
satisfaction.(Para - 27)
Application under section 319 Cr.P.C. - trial
court summoned applicant - statements of P.W.-
1 to P.W.-3 mentioned in verbatim in the order -
recorded prima-facie case against applicant -
thus applicant summoned - Initially named in
initial
information
report
-
investigation
expunged - no material evidence found - final
report
submitted
-
without
applicant
involvement. (Para - 25)

HELD:-Trial court found prima-facie, a case
against applicant. No such finding or the degree
of satisfaction recorded that there are much
stronger case available against the applicant.
Trial court ignored the law enunciated by the
Apex Court. Impugned order set aside. Matter
remitted back to trial court to take a fresh
decision. (Para - 29,30,31)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. At the very outset, Sri Kailash Nath
Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
opposite party no. 2 has raised a
preliminary objection that this application
under
section
482
Cr.P.C.
is
not
maintainable against the order dated 06-042023 passed by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Gonda.

2 . He added that the impugned order
has been passed while invoking the
jurisdiction under section 319 of Cr.P.C.
and it's not an interlocutory order and the
same is revisable and therefore invoking
the inherent powers under section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is barred as the inherent power can
be invoked, when there is no overt or
express
provision
in
the
Criminal
Procedure
Code
or
otherwise
any
alternative remedy is available.

3. In support of his contentions, he
has placed reliance on the Judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohit
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alias Sonu and Another Versus State of
U.P. and Another(Criminal Appeal No. 814
of 2013) decided on 1st July, 2013 and has
referred paragraph no. 23 of the aforesaid
Judgment, which is quoted hereinunder :-

"23. So far as the inherent power
of the High Court as contained in Section
482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the law in this
regard is set at rest by this Court in a
catena of decisions. However, we would
like to reiterate that when an order, not
interlocutory in nature, can be assailed in
the High Court in revisional jurisdiction,
then there should be a bar in invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In
other words, inherent power of the Court
can be exercised when there is no remedy
provided
in
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure for redressal of the grievance. It
is well settled that inherent power of the
court can ordinarily be exercised when
there is no express provision in the Code
under which order impugned can be
challenged. "

4. Relying on the aforesaid, he
submits that the Apex Court has reiterated
that if an order is not interlocutory, the
same can be assailed in the High Court, in
revisional jurisdiction and therefore, the
remedy of revision is available to the
applicant and invoking inherent powers in
such conditions is barred, thus the instant
application may be dismissed on this
ground alone.

5. Per contra, Sri Amrendra Nath
Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the applicant submits that the ratio of
the Judgment in Mohit alias Sonu &
Another(Supra) is not a good law and he
has placed reliance on the Judgment
rendered in Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of
Rajasthan & and Anr., reported in ABC
2016(II)126 SC and has referred paragraph
nos.6 & 7 of the said Judgement, which are
quoted hereinunder :-

"6. In our considered view any
attempt to explain the law further as
regards the issue relating to inherent
power of High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is unwarranted. We would simply
reiterate that Section 482 begins with a
non-obstante clause to state: ?Nothing in
this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect
the inherent powers of the High Court to
make such orders as may be necessary to
give effectto any order under this Code, or
to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.? A fortiori, there can be no total
ban on the exercise of such wholesome
jurisdiction where, in the words of Krishna
Iyer, J. ?abuse of the process of the Court
or other extraordinary situation excites the
court?s jurisdiction. The limitation is selfrestraint, nothing more.? We venture to
add a further reason in support. Since
Section 397 Cr.P.C. is attracted against all
orders other than interlocutory, a contrary
view would limit the availability of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to
petty interlocutory orders! A situation
wholly unwarranted and undesirable.

"7.
As
a
sequel,
we
are
constrained to hold that the Division
Bench, particularly in paragraph 28, in the
case
of
Mohit
alias
Sonu
and
another(supra) in respect of inherent power
of the High Court in Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. does not state the law correctly.
We record our respectful disagreement."

6. Relying on the aforesaid, he
submits
that
the
Apex
Curt
while
considering the law propounded in the case
of Mohit alias Sonu Vs. State of
5 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1241
U.P(Supra), has overruled the ratio of the
Judgement,
which
was
rendered
in
paragraph no. 28 and held that the inherent
power of the High Court under section 482
Cr.P.C., which was otherwise, interpreted
by the earlier Bench, is not correct law. He
added that in the subsequent Judgments,
Hon?ble Apex Court has held that Section
482 of Cr.P.C. begins with non obstante
clause and therefore, in case of abuse of
process of law, inherent power can be
invoked and there is no limitation except
the self restraining, thus, the summoning
order, which was passed under section 319
of Cr.P.C. can very well be challenged
while invoking the jurisdiction under
section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh,learned
A.G.A.-I appearing for the State has
submitted that for understanding the ambit
and scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it
would be appropriate to go into the history
of the enactment of the said provision. He
added that on 01-01-1862, the first Code of
Criminal Procedure came into force in
India and that did not contain any provision
recognizing the inherent powers of the
High Court. Thereafter, in 1898, the
provisions recognizing the inherent powers
of the High Court also did not contain and
in 1908, when the Code of Civil Procedure
was enacted and inherent powers under
section 151 of the C.P.C. was envisaged,
then the judicial opinion across the country
became divergent that on whether the High
Courts on criminal side also should have
inherent powers. Prior to 1923, there were
several verdicts of the High Courts that
provision like Section 151 of the C.P.C.is
nowhere in the Cr.P.C. and observed that
conscious omission of the law makers omit
the inherent powers of the criminal courts.
This divergence of opinion was done away
with by the amendment of the Cr.P.C. in
1923, known as Criminal Procedure Code,
1898(Amendment Act, 1923). By virtue of
the aforesaid amendment, Section 561-A
was inserted, which is quoted hereinunder
:-

"Saving of inherent power of
High Court"Division"-

561-A. Nothing in this Code shall
be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
power of the High Court "Division" to
make such orders as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code, or
to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice."

8. He added that thereafter, in
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it was
contained as Section 482, under Chapter
XXXVII of the Code, which is titled as
Miscellaneous Chapter.

9. Referring the aforesaid, he submits
that the exercise of inherent powers under
section 561-A of Cr.P.C. is to give effect to
an order under the Code, or to prevent
abuse of process of the Court and to
otherwise secure the ends of justice. He
added that no limitation can be put on the
powers of the High Courts given in Section
482 Cr.P.C. known as inherent powers and
had there been any intention of the
legislature for any kind of limitation, that
would have been given in the provisions
itself.

10. Further submission is that the
ratio of the Judgment in the case of Mohit
alias Sonu and another(Supra) is now, not a
good law, as much water has flown as
considering the aforesaid ratio of the
Judgment, the several Judgments have been
passed by the Apex Court including the
1242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judgment in the case of Prabhu Chawla
Versus
State
of
Rajasthan
and
Another(Supra), wherein the ratio of
Judgment in the case of Mohit alias Sonu
and Another(Supra) has been overruled.
Thus, the submission is that there is no
merit in the contentions of the learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the
same may be rejected.

11. Considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and the
historical background of inherent powers
envisaged under section 482 of Cr.P.C., it
transpires that prior to the enactment of the
Criminal Procedure Code,1973, in the old
Cr.P.C. i.e. Cr.P.C. 1898(Amendment)
Act,1923, for the first time, the inherent
powers
of
the
High
Courts
were
promulgated as under section 561-A. The
aforesaid provision came into existence
after thorough discussion, in the Forty First
Report of the Law Commission Of India.
The observations of the Law Commission
in it's report are as follows :-

"This
statutory
recognition,
however, extends only to the inherent
powers of the High Court. One may
compare it with the recognition of the
inherent powers of all civil courts by
section 151, Civil Procedure Code.

In a number of decisions before
and after the enactment of section 561-A,
various High Courts have also recognised
the existence of such power in subordinate
Courts. We would, therefore, recommend a
statutory recognition of such inherent
power which has been recognised as
vesting in all subordinate criminal courts.

However, the general principle of
law is that the inherent power of a court
can be exercised only to give effect to
orders made by it or to prevent abuse of its
own processes."

We
agree
with
the
recommendation. We do not, however,
consider it necessary or desirable to go
further and recognise an "inherent power"
in Courts of Session and other Courts of
Appeal to pass appropriate orders to
prevent the abuse of the process of any
subordinate Court."

12. The parliament accepting the
recommendations of Forty First Report of
Law Commission of India, envisaged the
provisions of inherent powers u/s 561-A of
Cr.P.C.(old).

13.

After
enactment
of
the
aforesaid provisions; time and again, the
Apex Court has interpreted the meaning
of the inherent powers given under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it has been
settled that the High Court can exercise
the inherent powers to prevent the abuse
of process of the Court for giving effect
to the orders under the Code and to
secure the ends of justice and the same
should be exercised sparingly, but, at the
same time, it is also noticeable that no
bar provided in any Judgment with
respect of invoking inherent powers,
exercising jurisdiction under 482 of
Cr.P.C. by the High Courts and infact,
this is also the intent of the legislature
while enacting the aforesaid provisions
as no bar has been put on the inherent
powers of the High Courts and this
provision
has
been
put
in
the
Miscellaneous Chapter in the Cr.P.C.
1973. The very starting words of the
provision says 'Nothing in this Code
shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court;
which clearly shows that no provision of
5 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1243
Cr.P.C. can be read overriding the
provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

14. It reveals that in case of Mohit alias
Sonu and another Vs. State of U.P.(Supra), it
was held by the Apex Court that High Court
while exercising its revisional jurisdiction,
considering the legality and propriety of the
order under section 319 of Cr.P.C., is required
to give notice and opportunity of hearing to a
person and further held that the inherent power
of the High Court can be exercised when there
is no remedy provided under the Code of
Criminal Procedure for redressal of the
grievance, though this question has again been
raised and came for consideration before the
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Prabhu
Chawa(Supra) wherein, the Apex Court has
very categorically held in para nos. 6 & 7 that
inherent powers of the High Court under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be barred by the
alternative remedy provided under the Cr.P.C.

15. When this court further examines
this issue, it is apparent from the bare reading
of the provisions of section 482 of Cr.P.C.
that the same starts with obstante clause i.e.
"Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit
or affect the inherent powers of the High
Court". This shows the intents of the
legislature in so many words that any
provision of Cr.P.C. can not said to be an
alternative remedy in reference with the
provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C and even
no provision of Cr.P.C. can limit the inherent
powers of High Court.

16. In view of the aforesaid
submissions
and
discussions,
the
preliminary objection raised by the learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is
hereby rejected.

17. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ravi
Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri K.N.Mishra, learned counsel
for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Anirudh
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the
State.

18. By means of the instant
application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
prayer has been made to quash the
summoning order dated 06-04-2023 passed
by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Gonda under
section 319 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.
1028 of 2020, (State Vs. Awadh Kishor
Tiwari and Others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 184 of 2020, under sections
302,201
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Umari
Begumganj, District-Gonda.

19. Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the applicant submits that by means of
the instant application, the applicant has
assailed the impugned order dated 06-042023 passed under section 319 of Cr.P.C.
He submits that the factual matrix of the
case is that a first information report was
lodged with the allegation that one Rajveer
@ Ranu was murdered by his brother,
wherein the accused persons namely,
Awadh Kishor Tiwari, Ram Kishor, Ashok
Kumar Singh(present applicant) and Lalit
Singh were named and after thorough
investigation of the matter was done by the
Investigating Officer and the Chargesheet
was filed against the accused persons
namely,Awadh Kishor and Kamla and the
final report was submitted. The name of the
present applicant was expunged at the time
of investigation itself. He further added that
the trial proceeded and chargesheet was
filed and summons were issued against the
other co-accused persons and when the
statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
were recorded before the trial court, an
application under section 319 of Cr.P.C.
1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was filed and objection was also submitted
by the present applicant. He added that
learned Magistrate while passing the
impugned order dated 06-04-2023 has put
the statements of the prosecution witnesses
in vibratum, in the order and no finding has
been recorded to the degree of satisfaction
that
there
was
much
stronger
case
available. In support of his contentions, he
has placed reliance on the Judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in
(2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 92 and has
referred the paragraph no. 117.5 of the said
Judgment, wherein the question no.(iv) has
been answered. Para no. 117.5 of the said
judgment is quoted hereinunder :-

"Q.IV What is the nature of the
satisfaction required to invoke the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an
accused? Whether the power under Section
319 (1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the
court
is
satisfied
that
the
accused
summoned will in all likelihood be
convicted?

117.5. Though under Section
319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. the accused subsequently
impleaded is to be treated as if he had been
an accused when the Court initially took
cognizance of the offence, the degree of
satisfaction that will be required for
summoning a person under Section 319
Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a
charge. The difference in the degree of
satisfaction for summoning the original
accused and a subsequent accused is on
account of the fact that the trial may have
already commenced against the original
accused and it is in the course of such trial
that materials are disclosed against the
newly
summoned
accused.
Fresh
summoning of an accused will result in
delay of the trial ? therefore the degree of
satisfaction for summoning the accused
(original and subsequent) has to be
different."

20. Referring the abovesaid, he
submits that it has been held by the Apex
Court that the degree of the satisfaction
while deciding an application under section
319 Cr.P.C. is required to be recorded. He
further added that in the course of deciding
the application under section 319 Cr.P.C.,
the material must be disclosed against the
newly summoned accused.

21. He has next referred the Judgment
and order in the case of Brijendra Singh
and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported
in (2017) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 706 and
has referred paragraph no. 15 of the
aforesaid Judgment, which is extracted
hereinunder :-

"15. This record was before the
trial court. Notwithstanding the same, the
trial court went by the deposition of
complainant and some other persons in
their examination-in-chief, with no other
material to support their so- called
verbal/ocular version. Thus, the ?evidence?
recorded during trial was nothing more
than the statements which was already
there under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded
at the time of investigation of the case. No
doubt, the trial court would be competent
to exercise its power even on the basis of
such statements recorded before it in
examination-in-chief. However, in a case
like the present where plethora of evidence
was
collected
by
the
IO
during
investigation which suggested otherwise,
the trial court was at least duty bound to
look into the same while forming prima
facie opinion and to see as to whether
?much
stronger
evidence
than
mere
possibility
of
their
(i.e.
appellants)
5 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1245
complicity has come on record. There is no
satisfaction of this nature. Even if we
presume that the trial court was not
apprised of the same at the time when it
passed the order (as the appellants were
not on the scene at that time), what is more
troubling is that even when this material on
record was specifically brought to the
notice of the High Court in the Revision
Petition filed by the appellants, the High
Court too blissfully ignored the said
material.
Except
reproducing
the
discussion contained in the order of the
trial court and expressing agreement
therewith, nothing more has been done.
Such
orders
cannot
stand
judicial
scrutiny."

22. Placing reliance on the aforesaid
Judgment, he added that it has been held by
the Apex Court that while deciding the
application under section 319 of Cr,.P.C.,
trial court has to look into, as to whether
there are much stronger evidence than mere
possibility of the complicity is available on
record ? and the satisfaction in this regard,
is also to be recorded. He submits that so
far as the present case is concerned, the
trial court while passing the impugned
summoning order did not apply it's judicial
mind and the law propounded by the Apex
court and thus, the order dated 06-04-2023
is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
therefore, the same may be set aside.

23.
 Contradicting
the
abovesaid
contentions, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2, has vehemently opposed the plea
and arguments of the counsel for the
applicant and submits that the learned trial
court has recorded a detailed finding and has
also mentioned the statements of the
prosecution witnesses no. 1 to 3, which are
apparent from the order itself. He submits
that in the finding clause, it is also recorded
that there is prima-facie case against the
present applicant as per the statements and
evidences adduced by the prosecution and
also got examined by the prosecution before
the trial court. He also added that there are
detailed discussion and reasoning made by
the trial court in the impugned order and as
such, there is no erroneousness or perversity
and thus, the instant application has no merit
and is liable to be dismissed.

24. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the
State has also opposed the contentions of
learned counsel for the applicant and submits
that the learned trial court has rightly passed
the
impugned
order
considering
the
statements of the prosecution witnesses,
which establishes more than the prima-facie
case against the applicant, and thus, no
interference is warranted.

25. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of the material
placed on record, it transpires that the
impugned summoning order dated 06-042023 passed by the trial court is on an
application under section 319 Cr.P.C. From
perusal of the impugned order, it emerges
that the statements of the P.W.-1 to P.W.-3
have been mentioned in verbatim in the order
and it is recorded that there is prima-facie
case against the applicant and thus, the
applicant has been summoned.

26. This court has also noticed the
fact that initially the present applicant
was also named in the first information
report and an investigation was done,
wherein his name was expunged as the
Investigating Officer while collecting the
evidences against the accused persons,
did not find material evidences with
respect to involvement of the present
applicant and thereafter final report was
submitted.
1246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. It also transpires from the
impugned order that the trial court found
that there is prima-facie case against the
present applicant, whereas, as per the law
laid down by the Apex Court, more than
prima-facie, case or much stronger cases,
is
required
while
summoning
such
accused thereby invoking the jurisdiction
under section 319 of Cr.P.C. The power
given to the court under section 319 of
Cr.P.C.is
a
discretionary
and
extraordinary and therefore, the same
should be exercised sparingly and further
it is not to be exercised in supine and
cavalier manner. The strong and cogent
evidence is warranted for test of degree
of satisfaction.

28. This court is also not unmindful to
the Judgment and ratio rendered in the case
of Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of
Rajasthan(Supra), which clearly holds that
much
stronger
evidence
than
mere
possibility of complicity is required in the
cases, where the trial court is invoking the
jurisdiction under section 319 of Cr.P.C.
while summoning the accused.

29. When this court examines the
impugned order passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Gonda in the light of the ratio of the
Judgments aforesaid, it emerges from the
order itself that the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, has found
prima-facie, a case against the applicant
and there is no such finding or the degree
of satisfaction recorded that there are much
stronger case available against the applicant
and as such, this court finds that the learned
trial court has ignored the law enunciated
by the Apex Court.

30. Resultantly, the impugned order
dated 06-04-2023 is hereby set aside.

31. The matter is remitted back to the
trial court concerned, to take a fresh
decision, after considering the application
under section 319 of Cr.P.C., within a
period of sixty days, from the date of this
order.

32. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant application is hereby allowed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1246
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 12560 of 2023

Yograj Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari, Sri Anoop
Trivedi (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Nipun Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power , Section 216 - Court may alter
charge , Section 319 - Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be
guilty of offence , Section 212 - Particulars
as to time, place and person , Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 302 - murder - if the
alteration or addition to a charge is such
that no prejudice is caused to either the
parties, court may, in its discretion,
proceed with the trial by amending the
said technical defects.(Para - 17)

(B) Criminal Law - Prejudice is shown
based on the facts of the case - In judging
a question of prejudice, as of guilt - courts
must act with a broad vision and look to