1 2025:CGHC:16309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1235 of 2025 1 - Pitamber Lal Sahu S/o Kirtan Lal Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. B-4, Wallfort Elenciya Sarona, P.S. Amanaka, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Civil Lines, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in criminal revision No. 508/2024, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable. 2. The brief facts of the case are the petitioner is an accused in criminal case No. 7949/2024 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur and is facing trial for the offence under Section 409, 420, 120-B and 34 of 2 IPC, the charge-sheet was filed on 07.05.2024 and charge against the petitioner has been framed on 01.07.2024 for the offence under Section 420, 120-B and 509 of IPC. During the course of trial on 31.08.2024 an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the prosecution for amendment in the charge framed against the petitioner. The said application of the was allowed vide order dated 22.10.2024 and charge earlier framed against the petitioner was amended and new charge of Section 467, 468 and 741 of IPC has been added along with other charges. The order dated 22.10.2024 was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur by filing the criminal revision No. 508/24 which was came up for hearing on 27.02.2025 and after hearing the parties learned revisional Court has dismissed criminal revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that the order dated 22.10.2024 order framing additional charge is interlocutory order against which the criminal revision is not maintainable and barred under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge cannot be amended on the application made by the prosecution and it is upon the Court of his own satisfaction and it can be amended on its independent consideration or subjective satisfaction based on the evidence available on record. But it cannot be on the basis of an application made by the prosecution. He would also submits that the order framing additional charge though is neither interlocutory nor final yet the bar under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the case and the criminal revision was maintainable which ought to have been decided by the revisional Court on its own merits instead of deciding that it is not maintainable. He would rely the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2022 (15) SCC 720. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that no prejudice is being caused even if the charge has been amended by the learned trial Court on the application filed by the prosecution. There is no change in any jurisdiction to try the case an opportunity is being provided to the petitioner who is an accused to cross- examine the witnesses, therefore, there is no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner is challenging the order framing additional charge in the matter. Vide order dated 22.10.2024 the additional charge Section 467, 468, and 471 of IPC was framed by the learned trial Court on the application made by the prosecution. The order of framing additional charge is neither an interlocutory order nor the final order as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Rai (supra) and in para 14 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been held that: "14. The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye, thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are, therefore, not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) CrPC. That apart, this Court in the above cited cases has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its aforestated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system. This Court, nonetheless does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be interference, may be in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen For example, when the contents of a complaint or the 4 other purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law." 6. Since the learned revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner holding that the revision is not maintainable which is filed against the interlocutory order and barred under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. appears to be erroneous. In view of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Rai (supra), I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide the revision afresh on its own merits, considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai (supra). 7. With this observation the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.02.2025 is set aside and the learned revisional Court is directed to decide the revision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.04.09 10:57:10 +0530