Allahabad High Court
Prabhakar Singh @ Dimpu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2026
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:105338
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2802 of 2026
Prabhakar Singh @ Dimpu
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Sharwan Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gorakhpur in Session Trial No.193 of 2016 (State vs. Upwan Singh and others) whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that an application paper no.62 Kha u/s 216 Cr.P.C. was moved to alter the charge but it was rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 23.03.2026. Further submitted that charge sheet was filed u/s 379, 411, 413, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. This fact did not come in the knowledge of the revisionist that was the reason he could not move an application for alteration of charge on previous occasion. When he came to know about this fact he moved such application but learned trial court did not consider this fact and rejected it illegally, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision.
He relied his arguments on the case of Sharif Ahmed and Another Versus State of U.P. and Another 2024 INSC 363 in Para nos. 38, 39 and 40 that are quoted hereinbelow:-
"38. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when the accused intendeds to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the accused to cause alarm must be established by bringing evidence on record. The word 'intimidate' means to make timid or fearful, especially: to compel or deter by or as if by threats.25 The threat communicated or uttered by the person named in the charge-sheet as an accused, should be uttered and communicated by the said person to threaten the victim for the purpose of influencing her mind. The word 'threat' refers to the intent to inflict punishment, loss or pain on the other. Injury involves doing an illegal act.
39. This Court in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another 26, had referred to Section 506 which prescribes punishment for the offence of 'criminal intimidation' as defined in Section 503 of the IPC, to observe that the offence under Section 503 requires that there must be an act of threating another person with causing an injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. This threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or omit to do an act which he is entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intent to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring home an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The material and evidence must be placed on record to show that the threat was made with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant, or to cause them to do, or omit to do an act. Considering the statutory mandate, offence under Section 506 is not shown even if we accept the allegation as correct.
40. In view of the aforesaid position, we quash the charge sheet and the summoning order. The appellants are discharged. We clarify that the observations made above will have no bearing on the civil proceedings, if any, already initiated or which may be initiated in future by the respondent/complainant."
He also relied his argument on the case of Dr. Anand Rai Vs. State of M.P. and Another 2026 INSC 141 in Para No. 12 that is related to sections 227 and 228 CrPC (Sections 250 and 251 B.N.S.S.) brought-forth hereinafter:-
"12. Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, which has been relied upon a bench of three judges in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, formulated the following principles regarding the scope of the above quoted sections:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that after framing of charge prosecution has adduced prosecution evidence and thereafter, the statement of the revisionist is to be recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. At this stage, the revisionist has moved an application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge and learned trial court has rejected the application by order dated 23.03.2026 on the ground that charge was framed against the revisionist after giving opportunity of hearing to the accused and also on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation by the I.O. Further contends that the power u/s 216 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised by the learned trial court exclusively. The accused has no right or entitlement to move an application for alteration of charge before the learned trial court. In this way, the order passed by learned trial court is lawful and there is no any illegality.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by leaned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by learned trial court dated 23.03.2026, it transpires that after giving opportunity of hearing to the revisionist/accused, the charge was framed under the aforesaid sections and, thereafter, prosecution was directed to lead its evidence and prosecution led evidence and, thereafter, statement of the accused/revisionists are to be recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. then such application has been moved by the accused/revisionist u/s 216 Cr.P.C. to alter the charge from Sections 379, 411, 413, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. to Section 379/413 I.P.C. The learned trial court has rejected the application after considering the facts of the case and also the fact that charge was framed against the revisionist/accused after giving opportunity of hearing to him. Further the application for alteration of charge u/s 216 Cr.P.C. cannot be moved by the accused/revisionist but the powers u/s 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusive power of the learned trial court to alter the charge as per the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh and another, 2014 0 Supreme (SC) 1088. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 23.03.2026 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) May 7, 2026 Ashok Gupta