caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Dr.Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 January, 2020Author: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud
Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3884 of 2019)
Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy …Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors …Respondents
JUDGMENT
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. 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.
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
16:18:40 IST
Reason:
1 Criminal Revision Case no 2712 of 2017
2 “IPC”
3 “FIR”
1
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 4. 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 19735 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, an additional charge-sheet was filed on 12 April 2013 in respect of the
alleged commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. 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. The trial commenced and
after the recording of evidence and conclusion of arguments, the case was
reserved for judgment on 13 February 2017.
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”
2
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 not framed by the trial judge under those provisions. On 21 February 2017,
the Trial Court allowed the application and charges under Sections 406 and 420
were framed against the appellant. The Trial Court observed that the court only
had the opportunity of going through the original charge-sheet dated 30 June
2012 and not the additional charge-sheet dated 12 April 2013 that was kept in a
separate bundle. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the appellant instituted
revisional proceedings before the High Court.
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.
6 The Trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the sides and
perusing the material available on record concluded that the ingredients for
offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not made out and by an order
dated 11 October 2017 rejected the application for framing additional charges.
The fourth respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court against the
above order of the Trial Court.
7 On 6 March 2019, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision
petition7 and set aside the Trial Court’s order. The High Court held that the Trial
6 Criminal Revision Case no 661 of 2017
7 Criminal Revision Case no 2712 of 2017
3
Court while rejecting the application 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 498A of the IPC
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act;
(c) Both the fourth respondent and his daughter being doctors are aware
that a doctor’s job cannot be secured in the United Kingdom without
clearing an entrance test. Accordingly, the question of paying Rs
5,00,000/- to the appellant for securing a job does not arise;
4
(d) 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;
(e) 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. There exists
no documentary material to indicate that the fourth respondent
borrowed money from PW 5; and
(f) The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 have not been fulfilled. At the
stage of framing of charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the
probative value of the material on record. The court only needs to
consider whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has
been committed (Onkar Nath Mishra v The State8). There exists a fine
distinction between cheating and a mere breach of contract. It depends
upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may
be judged by his subsequent conduct. 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. (Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v State of Bihar9).
10 On the other hand, Mr A T M Ranga Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent submitted thus:
(a) The fourth respondent did not intend to delay the pronouncement of the
decision. The additional charge sheet and the cognizance order had
been in place before the Trial Court since 2013. The additional charge-
8 (2008) 2 SCC 561
9 (2000) 4 SCC 168
5
sheet missed the attention of the Magistrate because it was kept in a
separate docket;
(b) The 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 (Anant
Prakash Sinha v State of Haryana10). In the present case, the
investigating officer filed the additional charge-sheet only after he
received additional 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 charge-
sheet 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 Investigation11).
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
10 (2016) 6 SCC 105
11 (2010) 9 SCC 368
6
daughter in the United Kingdom. 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. This is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the fourth
respondent before this Court which contains the docket order of the Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. In an order dated 16 August 2013 it was stated:
“… Additional charge sheet filed by investigating officer
through learned APP. This case was taken on file u/s 498 -A
of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act against A.1 to A.3 on
28.09.2012. Perused the Addl. Charge Sheet and other
available material on record. Heard learned APP. It is a fit
case to take on file Section 406 and 420 of IPC also
against A.1. Call on 16.09.2013.” (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. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
and the cognizance was taken for those offences by my
predecessor. Later an additional charge sheet was filed by
the investigation officer in this case and my predecessor
was please to take cognizance of offences punishable u/s
406, 420 IPC also on 16.08.2013. But the fact of filing of
additional charge sheet was not brought to the notice of
this Court and the additional charge sheet was kept as a
separate bundle in the record. So, charges were framed
against the accused only for the offence punishable u/s
498-A IPC and Sec. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
Sect. 406 and 420 of IPC were ignored. This fact came out
to the notice of this Court while this Court has gone through
the entire record after hearing arguments for disposal of the
case. On 13.02.2017 the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has
also filed a petition u/s 216 of CrPC, with a prayer to add
Section 406, 420 of IPC and to frame charges for those
offences also…” (Emphasis supplied)
13 It is evident from the record that the earlier Additional Junior Civil Judge
perused the additional charge-sheet and took cognizance of offences under
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. However, at the time of framing charges, the
7
additional charge-sheet was not brought to the notice of the court and the framing
of charges against the appellant under Sections 406 and 420 was not
considered. Therefore, the appellant was charged only for offences under Section
498A of the 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 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.”
15 Section 216 appears in Chapter XVII of the CrPC. Under the provisions of
Section 216, the court is authorised to alter or add to the charge at any time
8
before the judgment is pronounced. Whenever such an alteration or addition is
made, it is to be read out and explained to the accused. The phrase “add to any
charge” in Sub-Section (1) includes addition of a new charge. The provision
enables the alteration or addition of a charge based on materials brought on
record during the course of trial. Section 216 provides that the addition or
alteration has to be done “at any time before judgment is pronounced”. Sub-
Section (3) provides that if the alteration or addition to a charge does not cause
prejudice to the accused in his defence, or the persecutor in the conduct of the
case, the court may proceed with the trial as if the additional or alternative charge
is the original charge. Sub-Section (4) contemplates a situation where the
addition or alteration of charge will prejudice the accused and empowers the
court to either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be
necessary to mitigate the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused. Section
217 of the CrPC deals with recalling of witnesses when the charge is altered or
added by the court after commencement of the trial.
16 The decision of a two-judge Bench of this Court in P Kartikalakshmi v Sri
Ganesh12, dealt with a case where during the course of a trial for an offence
under Section 376 of the IPC, an application under Section 216 was filed to frame
an additional charge for an offence under Section 417 of the IPC. Justice F M
Ibrahim Kalifulla, while dealing with the power of the court to alter or add any
charge, held:
“6. … Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add
any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It
is now well settled that the power vested in the Court is
12 (2017) 3 SCC 347
9
exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to
seek for 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 Haryana13, 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 Section 406 of the IPC against the husband and the mother-in law.
After referring to various decisions of this Court that dealt with the power of the
court to alter a charge, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then
was), held:
“18. … 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. It can be on the basis of the
complaint or the FIR or accompanying documents or the
material brought on record during the course of trial. It can
also be done at any time before pronouncement of
judgment. It is not necessary to advert to each and every
circumstance. Suffice it to say, if the court has not framed a
charge despite the material on record, it has the jurisdiction
to add a charge. Similarly, it has the authority to alter the
charge. The principle that has to be kept in mind is that the
charge so framed by the Magistrate is in accord with the
materials produced before him or if subsequent evidence
13 (2016) 6 SCC 105
10
comes on record. It is not to be understood that unless
evidence has been let in, charges already framed cannot be
altered, for that is not the purport of Section 216 CrPC.
19. In addition to what we have stated hereinabove, another
aspect also has to be kept in mind. It is obligatory on the part of
the court to see that no prejudice is caused to the accused and
he is allowed to have a fair trial. There are in-built safeguards in
Section 216 CrPC. It is the duty of the trial court to bear in mind
that no prejudice is caused to the accused as that has the
potentiality to affect a fair trial…” (Emphasis supplied)
18 In CBI v Karimullah Osan Khan14, this Court dealt with a case where an
application was filed under Section 216 of CrPC during the course of trial for
addition of charges against the appellant under various provisions of the IPC, the
Explosives Act 1884 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
1987. Justice K S P Radhakrishnan, speaking for the Court, held thus:
“17. 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, subject to the conditions
mentioned therein. The expressions “at any time” and
before the “judgment is pronounced” would indicate that
the power is very wide 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.”
14 (2014) 11 SCC 538
11
(Emphasis supplied)
19 In Jasvinder Saini v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)15, 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 Thakur (as he then was) speaking for the
Court, held thus:
“11. A plain reading of the above would show 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. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of
Section 216 deal with the procedure to be followed once the
court decides to alter or add any charge. Section 217 of the
Code deals with the recall of witnesses when the charge is
altered or added by the court after commencement of the trial.
There can, in the light of the above, be no doubt about the
competence of the court to add or alter a charge at any time
before the judgment. The circumstances in which such
addition or alteration may be made are not, however,
stipulated in Section 216. It is all the same trite that the
question of any such addition or alternation would
generally arise either because the court finds the charge
already framed to be defective for any reason or because
such addition is considered necessary after the
commencement of the trial having regard to the evidence
that may come before the court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
20 From the above line of precedents, it is clear that Section 216 provides the
court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge. The
use of the words “at any time before judgment is pronounced” in Sub-Section (1)
empowers the court to exercise its powers of altering or adding charges even
after the completion of evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment. The
alteration or addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court there
15 (2013) 7 SCC 256
12
was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima facie examination of
the material brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as
to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. 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. Addition of a charge merely
commences the trial for the additional charges, whereupon, based on the
evidence, it is to be determined whether the accused may be convicted for the
additional charges. The court must exercise its powers under Section 216
judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused and that he 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 State16 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
16 (2008) 2 SCC 561
13
a ground for convicting the accused has been made out.
At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material
which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the
existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence
alleged would justify the framing of charge against the
accused in respect of the commission of that offence.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22 In the present case, the High Court while directing the framing the
additional charges has evaluated the material and evidence brought on record
after investigation and held:
“LW1 is the father of the de facto complainant, who states that
his son in law i.e., the first accused promised that he would
look after his daughter at United Kingdom (UK) and promised
to provide Doctor job at UK and claimed Rs.5 lakhs for the
said purpose and received the same and he took his daughter
to the UK. He states that his son-in-law made him believe and
received Rs.5 lakhs in the presence of elders. He states that
he could not mention about the cheating done by his son-in-
law, when he was examined earlier. LW13, who is an
independent witness, also supports the version of LW1 and
states that Rs.5 lakhs were received by A1 with a promise
that he would secure doctor job to the complainant’s
daughter. He states that A1 cheated LW1, stating that he
would provide job and received Rs.5 lakhs. LW14, also is an
independent witness and he supported the version of LW13.
He further states that A1 left his wife and child in India and
went away after receiving Rs.5 lakhs.
Hence, from the above facts, stated by LWs. 13 and 14, prima
facie, the version of LW1 that he gave Rs.5 lakhs to A1 on a
promise that he would provide a job to his daughter and that
A1 did not provide any job and cheated him, receives support
from LWs. 13 and 14. When the amount is entrusted to A1,
with a promise to provide a job and when he fails to
provide the job and does not return the amount, it can be
made out that A1 did not have any intention to provide
job to his wife and that he utilised the amount for a
purpose other than the purpose for which he collected
the amount from LW1, which would suffice to attract the
offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Whether there
is truth in the improved version of LW.1 and what have
been the reasons for his lapse in not stating the same in
his earlier statement, can be adjudicated at the time of
trial.
14
It is also evidence from the record that the additional charge
sheet filed by the investigating officer, missed the attention of
the lower court due to which the additional charges could not
be framed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
23 The test adopted by the High Court is correct and in accordance with
decisions of this Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent
before this Court, depositions of PW 1 (LW 1), PW 5 (LW 12) and PW 6 (LW 13)
and their cross-examination have been annexed. The material on record
supports the possibility that in April 2006, the appellant demanded Rs 5,00,000/-
from PW 1, who is the complainant, in order to secure a doctor’s job for the
complainant’s daughter in the United Kingdom. According to PW 1, he borrowed
the amount from PW 5 (brother-in-law of PW 1) and paid it to the appellant in the
presence of PW 5 and PW 6 (friend of PW 1). Without pronouncing on the
probative value of such evidence, there exists sufficient material on record that
shows a connection or link with the ingredients of the offences under Sections
406 and 420 of the IPC, and the charges sought to be added.
24 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. Appreciation of
evidence on merit is to be done by the court only after the charges have been
framed and the trial has commenced. However, for the purpose of framing of
charge the court needs to prima facie determine that there exists sufficient
material for the commencement of trial. The High Court has relied upon the
materials on record and concluded that the ingredients of the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are attracted. The High Court has spelt out the
15
reasons that have necessitated the addition of the charge and hence, the
impugned order does not warrant any interference.
25 We accordingly dismiss the appeal. The trial proceedings pending before
the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli shall continue.
26 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………..J.
[Dr DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD]
………………………………………………………..J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
New Delhi;
January 21, 2020.
16
Comments