IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.323 of 2008 BINOD PRASAD …..Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEEPAK KUMAR 3. MUNNA KUMAR …..Opposite parties ----------- 2. 01.12.2008. This Cr. Revision has been preferred against the order dated 15.01.2008 passed by F.T. C. III, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 2006/72 of 2006 thereby the petition filed by petitioner under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for amendment of charge has been rejected with the observation that the same may be considered at the time of final hearing. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are sufficient material and evidence to frame charge under Section 304 B of the IPC. However, the learned lower court without properly considering the evidence has refused to amend the charge. On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party submitted that in view of the suicidal note the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 306 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the charge was also framed. There is no scope for alternation of the charge at this stage when all the witnesses including the I. O. and the doctor have already been examined. - 2 - Considered the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order. It is quite apparent that the case is at the final stage of disposal. All the witnesses have already been examined. At this stage as well as in view of the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)