Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37484 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6556 of 2025 Applicant :- Vijeta Rana And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. Ram Raj Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party 1. Perused the record. Applicants Vijeta Rana and three others, who are charge sheeted accused and facing trial, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. challenging the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Mainpuri in Special Session Trial No. 673 of 2023(State Vs. Vijeta Rana and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 324 of 2022, under Sections 302/306 I.P.C., Police Station Ghiror, District Mainpuri, whereby Court below in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr. P. C. has altered the charges already framed against the applicants. Learned counsel for applicants with reference to the material on record submits that since the Magistrate while taking cognizance upon the charge sheet/police report submitted in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. by the Investigating Officer in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C., vide order dated 03.05.2023 had observed that prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC is made out, therefore, the order impugned dated 1.2.2025 amounts to a review of the earlier order dated 03.05.2024. Since Court below is not vested with the power of review, therefore, order impugned is not only illegal but in excess of jurisdiction, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed this application. He submits that Jurisdictional Magistrate, while, exercising jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. has limited jurisdiction, inasmuch the Jurisdictional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to increase or decrease the charging sections mentioned in the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. To buttress his submission, the learned A.G.A. has referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Girish RadhaKishan Varde, 2014 (3) SCC 659. It is next contended by the learned A.G.A. that Section 216 Cr. P. C. empowers the Court to alter the charge at any stage of the proceedings but before the delivery of judgement. As such, Section 216 Cr. P. C. gives discretion to Court to do complete justice to the parties. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. then submits that what is challenged in the present application, it is the exercise of discretion by Court below. With reference to the recital contained at page 61 of the paper book, the learned A.G.A. submits that exercise of discretion by Court below by means of order impugned cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Even otherwise, dictates of prudence require that exercise of discretion by Court below should not be interfered with by this Court. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party 1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record but furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However,it is provided that since applicant has already been enlarged on bail by Court below under the principal Section, Court below shall consider the bail application of applicant sympathetically and shall decide the same in the light of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 within a period of 1 month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 HSM Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad