1 2025:CGHC:49343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2964 of 2025 1 - Md. Gufran S/o Md. Shabuddin, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Azad Muhalla, Kunkuri, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh [Through P.S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.)] 2 - X Y Z Details Mentioned With A Separate Envelope. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjiv Pandey, Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25-09-2025 Heard. 1. The present petition has been filed for a direction to the learned trial Court to frame additional charge for more serious offences as disclosed from the evidence available on record and prayed for the following relief in the present petition:- “a) “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the order of charge dated 18/02/2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Kunkuri distt. Jashpur in Criminal Case No. 2565/2024 to the extent it frames charges only under Sections 509, 509B IPC and section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, and may further be pleased to direct the learned JMFC to frame appropriate/additional charges for the more serious Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.25 19:42:45 +0530 2 offences as disclosed from the evidence/material available on record, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the report made by (Ms. xxxxxx ) one FIR has been registered vide Crime No.79/2024 at Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur for offence under Section 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 against unknown accused persons. During the investigation accused Snehlata Lakda was arrested and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed against her before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunkuri for the offence under Section 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 where Criminal Case No.2565/2024 has been registered. During the course of trial, the learned trail Court has framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 509, 509B of the IPC and Section 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000 vide order dated 18-02-2025. 3. It transpires from the copy of the charge sheet annexed as Annexure-A/1 with the petition that the present petitioner is neither complainant nor a witness in the report made by the complainant (Ms. xxxxxx) in the offence of Crime No.79/2024. Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition claiming the addition of additional charge in Criminal Case No.2565/2024 in which he is neither the complainant nor a witness. The complainant of Crime No.79/2024 has neither filed any petition for addition or modification of the charge nor claimed any relief for the same. 4. Further, Section 216(1) of the Cr.P.C. (Section 239 of BNSS, 2023) provides that the trial Court may alter the charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 239 of BNSS, 2023) reads as under:- “216. Court may alter charge. ─ (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. 3 (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 the 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 or 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 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 had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.” 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this court finds that the petitioner has no locus to claim relief in the present case for modification/alteration of the charge framed against the accused. Further, the learned trial Court has ample power to amend/alter/frame new charge before passing the judgment, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil