Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28611 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1448 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harish Sahgal And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Pundir,Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Singh Pundir, learned counsel for petitioners and learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of present petition, petitioners have challenged order dated 11.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.584 of 2024 (Harish Sahgal and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 16.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No.5036 of 2018 whereby application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. preferred at the behest of respondent no.2, has been allowed. 3. The impugned orders have been challenged by petitioners on several other ground inter-alia over the ground that at very preliminary stage, charges have been altered by learned court concerned since the total number of prosecution witnesses are six wherein only P.W.-1 has been examined and only on the basis of examination of P.W.-1, charges have been altered in pursuance to Section 216 Cr.P.C. and petitioners have been summoned under Section 452 and 354 IPC. 4. On a very fair submission, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that although petitioners do not want to stay the entire proceedings of trial but at the same time, sought intervention of the Court to ensure some material facts over which the sections may be altered if required and the same may be brought before learned court concerned by way of examining the prosecution witnesses and the same cannot be determined only after examining the P.W.- 1. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as sought through the instant petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for petitioners by way of submitting that direct allegation has been put forward by P.W.-1/victim and examination of P.W.-1 itself is sufficient for altering the charges already framed against petitioners, although there is consensus between learned counsel for parties that till today, only P.W.-1 has been examined. 6. The procedural aspect of trial must be taken into consideration by learned court concerned as well as by learned revision court, the stage of alteration of charge if arrived at preliminary stage which is available in the instant matter, charges have been altered only after examination of P.W.-1 whereas, there might be a chance for altering some more charges in pursuance to examination of other prosecution witnesses and as such, the same shall be in shape of re-initiating the trial time and again. 7. The right to cross-examine the witnesses available before the petitioners, shall be ensured by learned court concerned and the same would be very easy if the charges have been altered on the basis of P.W.-1, the same prosecution witnesses shall be available before petitioners for conducting cross-examination but at the same time, in sofar as the other prosecution witnesses are concerned, they are still to be examined, although the same shall be again available for cross-examination but in any case, if the charges may be altered again, the entire trial will come to at zero point of initiation as fresh. 8. Just to avoid all the complexity of procedure, it is a trite law that last permissible limit for alteration of charges is mentioned in Section 216 Cr.P.C. is "at any time or before passing judgment", meaning thereby, the charges can be altered on the basis of examination of witnesses if preferred at any time but not later to passing of final judgment and as such, scope of alteration of charges is available as per law, is the period of entire initiation to culmination of trial. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners, is not sustainable that the charges may be altered after examining all the prosecution witnesses, in that situation, right available with the accused against whom charges have been altered, to re-cross examine all the prosecution witnesses again in respect to altered charges. But the assurance has been give by learned counsel for petitioners at this stage that if in any case, charges will be altered after examination of all the prosecution witnesses against the petitioners, the petitioners undertake not to re-cross examine the witnesses for ensuring expedite disposal of the trial in the instant matter. 10. Over the assurance given at bar by learned counsel for petitioners, order dated 11.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.584 of 2024, is hereby set aside and order dated 16.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No.5036 of 2018, is kept in abeyance till examination of all the prosecution witnesses and after completion of cross- examination, learned trial court concerned will be at liberty to alter the charges on the basis of fresh arrival over the statements recorded during examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad