# Satyam Sharma Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1078
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1202 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyam-sharma-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52614
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C., moved
at the instance of the complainant, for
alteration/addition of charge, when neither the
complainant nor the prosecution has any vested
right under law to seek alteration of charge, and
such power is exclusively vested in the Court.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.216
- Alteration or addition of charge -
Power of Court - No right in parties -
Application by complainant - Scope of
provision - Impugned order set aside

Held:

Section 216 Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision,
which empowers the Court alone to alter or add
to
any
charge
at
any
time
before
pronouncement of judgment, if such necessity
comes to its notice. The provision does not
confer any right upon the complainant, the
accused, or the prosecution to move an
application seeking alteration or addition of
charge. [Paras 8-9, 11-12]
The Trial Court committed a legal error in
entertaining and allowing the application filed by
11 All. Satyam Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1079
the complainant under Section 216 Cr.P.C.,
without considering the objection of the accused
that such application was not maintainable in
law. [Paras 9-11]
The High Court reiterated that, even if
circumstances arise warranting alteration or
addition of charge, the Court may act suo motu,
and no formal order is required merely on the
asking of a party. Remedies against such
alteration or addition remain available to the
parties at the appropriate stage in accordance
with law. [Para 12]
Reliance
was
placed
on
the
binding
pronouncement of the Supreme Court holding
that permitting parties to seek alteration of
charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. would render
conclusion of criminal trials difficult and would
jeopardise the concept of speedy trial. [Paras
11-13]
Accordingly,
the
impugned
order
dated
21.02.2025 passed by the Trial Court was set
aside, and the criminal revision was allowed.
[Paras 14-15] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Thakur Ram and Others v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1966 SC 911 - relied on; P.
Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and Another,
Criminal
Appeal
No.
1709
of
2014
(decided on 12.08.2014) - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860; Information Technology Act, 2000

List of Keywords
Alteration of charge; Addition of charge; Power
of Court; No right in parties; Application by
complainant; Speedy trial

Case Arising From
Order
dated
21.02.2025
passed
by
the
Additional District Judge / FTC-II (Crimes
Against Women), Varanasi in Sessions Case No.
1150 of 2021 (State v. Satyam Sharma), arising
out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2021, under
Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 66 of the
Information
Technology
Act,
2000,
Police
Station Chetganj, District Varanasi.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Ajeet Kumar Madhesia
For the State: Learned Additional Government
Advocate

## Text

1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh
who would be liable for contempt of this
Court in case the order passed by this Court
is not complied.

45. In light of the aforesaid, the Chief
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Irrigation, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Urban
Development,
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
the
District
Magistrate,
Prayagraj are granted one month's further
time to comply with the order dated
27.07.2016 passed by this Court in Writ-C
No. 62677 of 2015.

46. On the next date fixed the Chief
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Irrigation, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Urban
Development,
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
the
District
Magistrate,
Prayagraj shall either file their compliance
affidavit showing full compliance of the
order 27.07.2016 passed by this Court in
Writ-C No. 62677 of 2015 or shall be
personally present in the Court for framing
of charges.

47. List again on 05.01.2026 before
the appropriate Court. The matter shall not
be treated as tied up or part heard with this
Court.

48. The Registrar (Compliance) shall
send a copy of this order to the Chief
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Irrigation, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Urban
Development,
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
the
District
Magistrate,
Prayagraj within 24 hours.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1078
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1202 of 2025

Satyam Sharma ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ajeet Kumar Madhesia

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing
an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C., moved
at the instance of the complainant, for
alteration/addition of charge, when neither the
complainant nor the prosecution has any vested
right under law to seek alteration of charge, and
such power is exclusively vested in the Court.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.216
- Alteration or addition of charge -
Power of Court - No right in parties -
Application by complainant - Scope of
provision - Impugned order set aside

Held:

Section 216 Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision,
which empowers the Court alone to alter or add
to
any
charge
at
any
time
before
pronouncement of judgment, if such necessity
comes to its notice. The provision does not
confer any right upon the complainant, the
accused, or the prosecution to move an
application seeking alteration or addition of
charge. [Paras 8-9, 11-12]
The Trial Court committed a legal error in
entertaining and allowing the application filed by
11 All. Satyam Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1079
the complainant under Section 216 Cr.P.C.,
without considering the objection of the accused
that such application was not maintainable in
law. [Paras 9-11]
The High Court reiterated that, even if
circumstances arise warranting alteration or
addition of charge, the Court may act suo motu,
and no formal order is required merely on the
asking of a party. Remedies against such
alteration or addition remain available to the
parties at the appropriate stage in accordance
with law. [Para 12]
Reliance
was
placed
on
the
binding
pronouncement of the Supreme Court holding
that permitting parties to seek alteration of
charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. would render
conclusion of criminal trials difficult and would
jeopardise the concept of speedy trial. [Paras
11-13]
Accordingly,
the
impugned
order
dated
21.02.2025 passed by the Trial Court was set
aside, and the criminal revision was allowed.
[Paras 14-15] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Thakur Ram and Others v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1966 SC 911 - relied on; P.
Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and Another,
Criminal
Appeal
No.
1709
of
2014
(decided on 12.08.2014) - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860; Information Technology Act, 2000

List of Keywords
Alteration of charge; Addition of charge; Power
of Court; No right in parties; Application by
complainant; Speedy trial

Case Arising From
Order
dated
21.02.2025
passed
by
the
Additional District Judge / FTC-II (Crimes
Against Women), Varanasi in Sessions Case No.
1150 of 2021 (State v. Satyam Sharma), arising
out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2021, under
Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 66 of the
Information
Technology
Act,
2000,
Police
Station Chetganj, District Varanasi.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Ajeet Kumar Madhesia
For the State: Learned Additional Government
Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Madhesia,
the learned counsel for revisionist and
learned AGA for the State. None is present
for opposite party Nos.2 and 3, despite
sufficient service.

2. Satyam Sharma, the revisionist, has
filed the present criminal revision being
aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.2025,
passed by Additional District Judge/FTC-II
(for trying-cases of crime against women)
at Varanasi in Session Case No.1150 of
2021 titled State vs. Satyam Sharma,
arising out of Case Crime No.99 of 2021
under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section
66 of Information Technology Act, 2000,
Police Station-Chetganj, District-Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has submitted that an application under
Section 216 Cr.P.C. (12-Ka) has been filed
by the complainant of the case, namely,
Munna Lal Goswami and seeks the
permission that the charges against the
POCSO Act shall be altered against the
accused Satyam Sharma. The revisionist
has submitted that he had filed objection
16-Kha before the learned trial court and
took this plea that the charge-sheet has
been filed and the evidence, in the case, is
already complete. The applications filed by
the complainant under Section 216 Cr.P.C.
is not maintainable. The marriage between
victim and accused took place on 31.1.2020
at Shitla Mata Mandir and it was further
registered at court on 27.2.2020.

4.
The
revisionist
has
further
submitted that the learned trial court has
completely committed legal error. The
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisionist has further submitted that the
learned trial court failed to appreciate the
law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, that the law does not permit either of
the parties of the case to move an
application under Section 216 Cr.P.C.

5. He further submits that the
statement of the victim was recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 7.7.2021, where on
the reply of this specific question to the
victim when accused had entered the
physical relationship with him. The victim
specifically replied that the accused make
physical relationship with her for the last
three months. When the question was asked
about her date of birth and its certificate,
she specifically replied that my date of
birth is 27.2.2002; I'm submitting my copy
of Aadhaar-card and photostat copy of my
class-VIII at junior high-school.

6. He further submitted that the
medical-examination of the victim took
place and 'no-injury' was found on her body
and her hymen was found ruptured. In the
medical-examination of the victim dated
7.7.2021, it is mentioned that the incident
of offence is one year before. He further
submits that at the time of reporting of the
incident before the concerned police
station, the victim was more than 19 years.
He further submits that the FIR was
registered on 7.7.2021 and there is no date,
time of occurrence of offence is mentioned
in the FIR, which was lodged by father of
the victim. He further submits that
Investigating Officer of the case during the
course investigation prepared the Parcha
No.2 dated 10.7.2021, where he mentioned
that as per marks-sheet of the victim, the
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., the age of victim is 19 years 4
months, therefore, the offence punishable
under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 had
been omitted. During the further course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
recorded the second statement, in which the
first informant/father of the victim himself
contradicted and not supported his earlier
version recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

7. In the additional statement of first
informant/father of the victim, where the
question was asked him about the pistol
then he replied that it is made of plastic,
which is used as 'toy'. When the specific
question was asked, whether his daughter is
having any knowledge about the pistol that
which is right and which is wrong, then the
answer is 'silence'. When further question
was asked, whether any other persons are
having any knowledge about the pistol, so
its veracity could be determined then the
reply of father of the victim is 'silence'. He
further submits that the victim is a majorgirl and due to love-affection with the
revisionist, she got married at Shitla Mata
Mandir, Varanasi on 31.1.2020 in the
presence of their family-members and also
solemnized
her
marriage
with
the
revisionist on 27.2.2020 by way of notarial
marriage agreement. The date of notarial
marriage dated 27.2.2020 is very much
relevant, which corroborates the awareness
and maturity of the victim that the
notarized marriage agreement was took
place between the revisionist and the victim
at court on 27.2.2020 where she reached
her age of 18 years, as she herself disclosed
her date of birth as 27.2.2002. The FIR is
dated 7.7.2021. The victim admitted the
relationship, if any, which persists for last
three months.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has further submitted that he is confining
his argument up to the limit that neither
parties are having the legal-right as per
provisions of law to move an application
11 All. Satyam Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1081
under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Section 216
Cr.P.C. is as follows:

"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."

9. He further submitted that the power
of invocation of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is
exclusively confined to the Court as
enabling provision for the purpose of
alteration or addition of any charge at any
time
before
pronouncement
of
the
judgment. No party, neither complainant
nor accused has any vested right to seek
any addition or alteration of charge,
because it is not provided under Section
216 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that in the
objection (16-Kha) dated 3.2.2025, he has
specifically
took
this
plea
that
the
application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is
not maintainable. His, this contention was
not considered by the learned trial court
and passed the impugned order dated
21.2.2025, which is illegal and without any
provisions of law. It is liable to be set aside.
The criminal revision is entitled to be
allowed.

10. Learned AGA for State-opposite
party No.1 has filed the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
by means of counter affidavit. This
statement was recorded on 22.7.2021,
where it is deposed that she knows victim
for the last three years. Three years ago, he
threatened her that you should go, where he
desire, otherwise he will kill my brother.
On the same day, he took myself on an auto
and shown gun, he took me in hotel and
made physical-relationship with myself.
Hence, it appears that all happens on the
first day. These all happened to be very
first day of meeting, as stated by the victim;
it is appeared to be improbable. In the
second page of her statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C., she stated that one inspector of
Police Station-Chetganj took my sign on
blank-paper and he threatened me that she
should told '3-months', instead of '3 years';
the said incident was happened to me.

11. This entire statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. and particularly the
last four lines of her statements had to be
appreciated and analyzed by the learned
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
trial court at the time of appreciation of
evidence, as learned counsel for the
revisionist has confined his argument on
the legal-questions, that neither prosecution
nor accused is having any right of law to
file an application under Section 216
Cr.P.C. It is only the concerned trial court,
which is having the force of law. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in
Thakur Ram and others vs. State of
Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 911; that
the power available under Section 216
Cr.P.C. can be exercised only by the court
on its own and no party has any right to
seek for passing any order under the said
provisions.

12. Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the
court to alter or add any charge at any time
before the judgment is pronounced. 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, the power is
always vested in the court, as provided
under Section 216 Cr.P.C. 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
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.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
on August 12, 2014 in Criminal Appeal
No.1709 of 2014 titled P.Kartikalakshmi
vs. Sri Ganesh and another that the power
of invocation of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is
exclusively confined with the court as an
enabling provision for the purpose of
alteration or addition of any charge at any
time
before
pronouncement
of
the
judgment, we make it clear that no party,
neither de facto complainant nor the
accused or for that matter, the prosecution
has any vested right to seek any addition or
alteration of charge, because it is not
provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. If such
a course to be adopted by the parties, is
allowed, then it will be well nigh
impossible for the criminal court to
conclude its proceedings and the concept of
speedy trial will get jeopardized.

14. Hence the impugned order dated
21.2.2025 is hereby set aside.

15. The Criminal Revision is allowed,
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1082
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1576 of 2020

Ankita Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

Issue for Consideration
Whether, in view of the bar contained in Section
362 Cr.P.C., the High Court could recall or
restore its earlier order, by which the criminal
revision had been finally decided on merits, on
the ground that the opposite party no. 2 was