Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manju Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 January, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-14992 of 2012 (O&M) -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-14992 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 08, 2013.
Manju Yadav
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Haryana and others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri Sarfaraj Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Sandeep S. Mann, Senior Dy. Advocate General, Haryana.
Shri S.N.Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order Annexure P-3 dated 29.02.2012 and Annexure P-4 dated 21.03.2012 whereby the application for framing the charge under Section 328 IPC has been declined by the Trial Court as well as by the Revisional Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that from the bare reading of the contents of the FIR as well as Annexure P-5, it is clear that the respondent Jai Veer Singh, mother-in-law and father-in-law, respondents No.2 to 4, with an intention to kill the petitioner, gave her some poisonous substance. This fact is specifically mentioned in the FIR. However, in the subsequent statement allegedly under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she allegedly stated that she had taken the same inadvertently. He further Crl. Misc. No. M-14992 of 2012 (O&M) -: 2 :- contended that charge can be altered at any stage.
Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contention that charge can be amended at any stage.
I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, the allegations in the FIR are to the effect that Jai Veer Singh, mother-in-law and father-in-law have allegedly given some poisonous substance to the complainant which prima facie fulfills the ingredients under Section 328 IPC. Keeping in view the subsequent statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, charge has not been framed. Now, it is to be seen whether after the examination of the witnesses during the trial, charge can be amended. It is settled principle of law that charge can be amended at any stage and framing of additional charge is permissible as per the provisions of the Code.
If during the course of trial, evidence is brought before the Court, then the trial Court will be at liberty to amend the charge according to the evidence available on the file. With this liberty, revision petition is disposed of. However, the respondents will be afforded adequate opportunity to defend against the charge subsequently amended, if any.
[ Paramjeet Singh ] January 08, 2013. Judge kadyan