Prashant Kumar,J. - (1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.05.2014 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Chaibasa in G.R. No. 206 of 2006, whereby and whereunder he altered the charge by adding Section 326 of the I.P.C. in the main charge and had further ordered that recall of any witness for further examination and cross-examination not required because that will delay the proceeding.
(2.) It appears that earlier the charge was framed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa only under Sections 498A/34 of the I.P.C. vide order dated 25.07.2006. However, it appears that informant had filed an application for addition of charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 13.06.2008. It then appears that against the said order informant has filed a criminal revision in this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2009 and in the said order the following observation made: "14.7.09 ... In my opinion, since 40% burnt injury was there, it may be the case for offence u/s 325 or 326 of the Indian Penal Code. After examination of other witnesses, the trial court will again consider the desirability of changing the charges under other Section 325 of the IPC, on an application".
(3.) However, it appears from the impugned order that even after the observation made by this Court in the aforesaid revision, the charge has not been altered and the trial court proceeded with the trial and ultimately the case of prosecution has been closed and thereafter accused persons examined and their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It appears that before the start of the defence, the court below, on the request of prosecution, altered the charge on 29.05.2014 and Section 326 of the I.P.C. was added. The court below, after going through the evidence, has found that the parties had already examined and cross-examined all the witnesses on the point of injury sustained by the victim, therefore, the learned court below came to the conclusion that no prejudice will be caused to the accused or the prosecution if the charge will be altered. The learned court below also concluded that recall of the witnesses for examination or cross-examination is not desirable in the interest of justice as the same will further delay the proceeding.;