Allahabad High Court
DHARM SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 17 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
The order refusing to add Section 307 IPC is not illegal as amendment of charges must be decided at the charge‑framing stage.
Summary
The applicant, Dharm Singh, lodged an FIR on 13 November 2018 alleging offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 IPC. The investigating officer filed a charge‑sheet on 29 June 2019 omitting Section 307 and instead including Section 323. The applicant sought, through an application under Section 528 of the CrPC, that the charge of Section 307 be added to the trial, but the Additional District & Sessions Judge rejected the request. The State argued that addition or subtraction of charges is to be decided at the charge‑framing stage, relying on State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (2014) 3 SCC 659. The High Court held that there was no illegality in the trial court’s order and that the proper stage for altering charges had already passed. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order refusing to add Section 307 IPC to the charge‑sheet is illegal.
- At what stage can sections be added or omitted from the charge‑sheet in a criminal trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- charge framing
- amendment of charges
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 528 CrPC
- revision application
- FIR
- charge sheet
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31379 of 2026
Dharm Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 17 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed with a prayer to allow this
application and set aside the order dated 31.03.2026 passed by Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Court no. 09, Farrukhabad in Session Case No.
184 of 2021 (State v. Jawahar Lal & others), arising out of Case Crime
no. 630/2018 Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Maudarwaja, District Farrukhabad and direct the learned trial Court to
also frame the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. alongwith the other
Sections against the opposite party no. 2 to 18.
3. Briefly stated, the applicant, first informant, Dharm Singh, lodged an
FIR against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 18 and several others on
13.11.2018 i.e., Case Crime No. 630 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Maudarwaja, District
Farrukhabad wherein after the investigation, the charge-sheet was
submitted on 29.06.2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and the cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Farrukhabad on 15.07.2019 under Sections under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 504, 506 IPC and summoned the respondent-accused to face trial.
Thereafter, the applicant/first informant filed an application before the
learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/F.T.C., Farrukhabad for summoning the accused persons under
NA528 No. 31379 of 2026
2
Section 307 IPC which was rejected by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., vide order dated 31.03.2026. Hence, the
present petition.
4. The main submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that
though the FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506
I.P.C., but due to lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, the charge
sheet was submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
The learned Magistrate while taking cognizance did not consider the
entire material on record and had taken the cognizance under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC, without application of judicial mind, in
a cursory manner.
5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submitted that there is no illegality
in the order impugned. It is further submitted that since the matter emerges
out of a Police case, therefore, addition or subtraction of Sections will
have to be determined at the time of framing of charges. In this regard, he
has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Guajart v. Girish Radhkrishnan Varde; (2014) 3 SCC 659 wherein it
has been held that "Since the instant case is based on the FIR lodged
before the police, the correct stage for addition or subtraction of the
Sections will have to be determined at the time of framing of charge."
6. In view of the above, there in no illegality in the order impugned. No
interefence is required for.
7. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
September 18, 2026
Aditya Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…