tHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3714 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate holding brief of Sri Sadrul Islam Jafari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut, whereby charges under Sections 498A, 323, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. have been framed against the revisionists in Session Trial No. 917 of 2023 (State vs. Faizan) and Session Trial No. 307 of 2024 (State vs. Khushnuma and others). 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the learned trial Court has framed the charges under Sections 498A, 323, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, besides an alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. has also been framed. He further submitted that the said charge framed under Section 302 I.P.C. is not mandatory and the same has been framed in a mechanical manner. In support of his contention learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 819 of 2013, decided on July, 2, 2013 (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 256 : (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 295 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 547, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is unrestricted power to add or alter any Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ambreen Masroor, Sadrul Islam Jafri, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Tripathi, G.A., Surya Prakash Pandey Smt Khushnuma And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) charge, whenever court finds that defective charge has been framed or addition of new charge becomes necessary after commencement of trial - But such addition or alteration has to made before pronouncement of judgement. Learned counsel for the revisionist has very fairly submitted that as far as eight prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial is at advance stage. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that if the accused persons succeeded in establishing their case, wherein they have been provided reasonable and sufficient opportunity during the course of trial, thus, it is not necessary that the same may lead to conviction or otherwise. 5. Having regard to the fact that the trial has already commenced and as much as eight prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is at advance stage, no useful purpose would be served, if the trial is scripted or revisited at the advance stage and both the possibilities of conviction or acquittal can not be ruled out. 6. Under such circumstances, the instant revision is disposed of with a direction with the accused persons will have sufficient and ample opportunity to adduce evidence in support thereof at the appropriate stage. September 17, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 3714 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad