APHC010222072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 567/2025 Between: 1. MS KADALI MARY FLORENCE KUMARI, KUMARI W/O. SRINIVAS AGE57 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, CASTE SC-MALA, VISWESWARAYAPURAM VILLAGE, MALKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT AMARAVATI, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MALKIPURAM POLICE STATION. 2. KATTA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O.GOWRI SHANKARANARAYANA AGE53 YEARS, OCCSETTIBALIJA, R/O.D.NO.3-167, OCCPOLICE CONSTABLE, VISWESWARAYAPURAM VILLAGE, MALKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. KATTA PALLAMMA, W O GOWRI SHANKARNARYANA MALKIPURAM EASTGODAVARI ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to call for records in and relating to the order passed by the Court of Special Judge For Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act-cum-X Addl. District Court, Rajamahendravaram in Crl.MP No. 2788 of 2022 in SC ST S.C. No.68 of 2017, dt.16.01.2025 and set aside the same and allow the Crl.MP No. 2788 of 2022 in SC ST S.C. No.68 of 2017 on the file of Court of Special Judge For Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act-cum-X Addl. District Court, Rajamahendravaram in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of of days in filing the Revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the Petitioner / Defacto Complainant aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2788 of 2022 in SC ST SC No.68 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-X Additional District Court, Rajamahendravaram. The case of the Petitioner/Defacto complainant is that on 06.04.2016 the Accused Nos.1 to 3 brought petrol in bucket and poured on her back and tried to set fireon her body by litting match box. On the intervention of one Dundi Vijay Kumar luckily, she was survived. Basing on the contents of the complaint give by the petitioner/defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.54 of 2016 is registered by Malkipuram Police Station against A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act. The grievance of the Petitioner is that during enquiry, the police deleted Section 307 IPC and filed charge sheet, but the allegations as per her statement attribute the offence relating to Section 307 IPC as the accused attempted to kill the petitioner/defacto complainant. Ventilating her grievance, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2788 of 2022 in SC ST SC No.68 of 2017, and the learned District Judge by Order dated 16.01.2025 dismissed. Questioning the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed by the Petitioner. Heard Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Perused the material on record. 3 Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the learned District Judge without examining the presence of the material evidence to add the charge under Section 307 IPC arbitrarily dismissed the petition. The Investigating Officer deliberately omitted to add Section 307 IPC and prays to allow the criminal revision case. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the Investigating Officer after thorough enquiry and investigation, filed charge sheet for the offences which are attracting to the case. Considering the submissions made, it is to be observed the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C. and it confers jurisdiction on all Courts, including the designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced and Sub-Sections (2) to (5) prescribe the procedure which has to be followed after that addition or alteration. Needless to say, the Courts can exercise the power of addition or modification of charges under Section 216 CrPC, only when there exists some material before the Court, which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified. In other words, alteration or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during the course of trial before the Court. As can be seen from the impugned Order, the learned District Judge invoking the provisions under Section 216 Cr.P.C., dismissed the petition. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in the order impugned. In the circumstances of the case, it is left open to the Trial Court to take a call whenever the situation demands for framing the charge. 4 Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 11.03.2026 Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 567 of 2025 11.03.2026 Mjl/*