IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Dated this 23rd the day of December, 2009. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy Crl.P.No. 10725 of 2009 Between: Ch. Srinivasa Rao ..Petitioner And The Sate of AP and another ..Respondents PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 10725 of 2009 O R D E R: This petition is filed against the order of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Jude, Cyberabad in Crl.R.P.No. 44 of 2009, which was filed against the order of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri passed in C.C.No. 88 of 2005. 2. The facts relevant are as follows: The present petitioner/accused was facing prosecution for the offence under section 498-A IPC. During the course of trial, after most of the witnesses, including a Medical Officer, was examined, the prosecution filed a petition under section 216 Cr.P.C., for addition of charges under sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 324 and 325 or 326 IPC. The learned Magistrate after elaborate discussion allowed the said petition. But instead of S.326 IPC, the Magistrate ordered for the charges under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition act and Sections 324 and 325 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No. 44 of 2009, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. 3. Now the only question that arises for consideration is whether in the circumstances, the learned Magistrate was right in allowing the petition for framing of additional charges? 4. Section 216 Cr.P.C., under which the impugned petition was filed, reads as follows: 216. The 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 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 of 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 or 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. 5. Thus, as per S. 216, the court can alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in case cognizance of the case has not been taken for the additional charges now framed, it is illegal. I am not at all inclined to accept this contention, as, after taking cognizance for a particular offence, if the material on record reveals a different offence, even at the time of framing of charges initially, the charges for a different offence than for which cognizance was actually taken can be framed. 6. In the present case, the complaint given by the de facto complainant reads: “She married the petitioner/accused on 24.11.1999; after the marriage he started harassing her on the topic of dowry saying that he needs more dowry; that whenever her parents are there his behavior was alright; but whenever they go out, he used to harass her physically also ; that he was working in Bombay; but he never took her to Bombay. Later, he went to USA, there also he did not take her, but from there also he used to harass her through e-mails and telephone and always used to say that I should die. That her parents brought him to India and tried to have a job in WIPRO through her uncle; but after coming back also, he started troubling her and her parents. He again went to USA through WIPRO and from there also he harassed. Now after two months of his coming back, he is asking her to sell away all the properties given by her parents; since three days he started troubling her stating that he wants divorce, as her parents are not agreeable to sell her property. He was saying that in case she failed to give her property to him he would give poison in some food. On the morning of the date of complaint, he started beating her when her parents went out. When her parents asked about the same he beat them severely and that she is scared of her life” 7. Thus the allegations in the FIR show sufficient material to constitute an offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as under section 324 IPC, as by then there was no medical evidence, there was no possibility for framing a charge under section 326 IPC. 8. The charge sheet reveals that the marriage was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, six acres of land and Rs.10.00 Lakhs cash and some gold was given as dowry. The accused who did his M.Tech., from IIT was working as a Manager in WIPRO; they have a male child; the accused used to go abroad on behalf of the company; on account of that the complainant was residing at her parental home. After four days of the marriage, itself, the accused started harassing the complainant mentally and physically asking her to sell her property and he continued the harassment. The accused assaulted the complainant and when her parents questioned, he also assaulted them. Thus the contents of the charge sheet also reveal sufficient material for the offence under section 324 IPC. 9. Thus, the allegations in the charge sheet show that the accused committed an offence punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also. But the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case only for the offence under section 498-A IPC. 10. The order of the learned Magistrate shows that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the de facto complainant and her parents reveals that offences under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 324 IPC are constituted and the medical evidence of PW-4 revels that an offence under section 325 IPC is constituted. 11. Thus, from the beginning there is material and the same is confirmed in the evidence of the witnesses. Such being the case, there is nothing like a new case being made out against the petitioner/ accused. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra[1]. In this decision there is nothing, which shows that additional charge cannot be framed. A reference is made saying that totally a new charge in regard to altogether a new subject cannot be framed in view of section 423 (1)(d), 535 and 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old). But, now there is change of Law. As already extracted Section 216 of Cr.P.C., 1973 empowers the court to add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 13. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat [2] the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is scope for alteration of charge during trial, on the basis of the material brought on record. Sec. 216 Cr.P.C. stipulates that any court may alter or add any charge, at any time before pronouncement of the judgment. If during trial, the trial court on consideration of the broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and the documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so and there can be no legal bar for the same. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not get to my notice any legal provision or precedent to say that the Court is not empowered to frame any charges in view of the enabling provision made under section 216 Cr.P.C. 15. Thus, there are no merits in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 16. It is needless to say that after the additional charges are framed, if the accused intends to cross examine the witnesses with reference to such charges, the same has to be allowed by the Court. 17. At the time of the pronouncing the judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the question of limitation is also involved, as cognizance cannot be taken i.e., charge cannot be framed after expiry of limitation. Therefore, the question of limitation if raised has also to be considered by the trial court only while pronouncing the judgment, as it is stated that almost all the witnesses are examined, may be, except the Investigating Officer, such being the case, in case the question of limitation which is raised at this belated stage has to be considered at the time of framing of Additional charges, that can cause substantial delay in disposal of the case. The trial court is directed to dispose of the calendar case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. December 23, 2009. *BVS [1] AIR 1970 SC 359 [2] (2004) INSC 223 ( 5 APRIL 2004)