Section 216 CrPC | No Vested Right For Accused To Seek Alteration Of Charge; Court’s Power Is Exclusive And Discretionary: Jharkhand High Court

"The power of invocation of Section 216 CrPC is exclusively confined with the Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment and no party, neither de facto complainant nor the accused or for that matter the prosecution has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge." Jharkhand High Court, in a ruling dated 07 October 2026, held that an accused possesses no vested legal right to file an application under Section 216 of the CrPC seeking the alteration or modification of charges.

A bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad observed that the power to alter or add to a charge is an exclusive, enabling discretion vested solely in the trial court to be exercised if and when a necessity arises during the proceedings.

The petitioner, Madhu Kora, had challenged an order of the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, which had deferred his request for modification of charges to a later stage of the trial. The petitioner contended that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had arbitrarily increased the amount of "proceeds of crime" in subsequent complaints without establishing a foundational nexus with the scheduled offences. He argued that the court below erred in failing to adjudicate his plea for alteration, which he claimed was causing irreparable prejudice.

Court Explains Ambit Of Section 216 CrPC

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner could compel the trial court to entertain a formal application for alteration of charges under Section 216 CrPC. Further, the court was called upon to determine if the ED is required to maintain strict arithmetical parity between the amounts quantified in predicate offence charge-sheets and the amount alleged in PMLA complaints.

Court Rejects Mechanical Challenge To Charges

The High Court observed that Section 216 CrPC is an enabling provision intended to prevent a miscarriage of justice, not a tool for parties to derail or protract criminal proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh, the bench emphasized that allowing parties to file repeated applications for charge alteration would make the conclusion of trials impossible. The court clarified that the trial court is not obligated to pass formal orders on such "vexatious" applications, and their filing does not grant the petitioner a gateway to invoke revisional or inherent jurisdiction.

No Requirement For Arithmetical Parity

The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the discrepancy in the quantum of the alleged proceeds of crime. It held that the definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, especially after the 2019 amendment, is expansive. It includes not only property derived from the scheduled offence but any property directly or indirectly obtained through criminal activity relatable to such an offence. The court ruled that there is no statutory requirement for the value of proceeds of crime in a PMLA complaint to arithmetically match the figure in a predicate offence charge-sheet.

Sterling Quality Material Needed For Quashing

Regarding the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the court reiterated that it cannot function as a court of appeal or revision at this stage. It held that to quash a proceeding or interfere with a trial court’s order, the accused must produce material of "sterling and impeccable quality" that would rule out the prosecution's case. The court noted that in the present case, the petitioner had previously challenged similar amendments to charges via a revision petition, which he later withdrew, and therefore, the present attempt was merely an effort to re-agitate settled issues.

Trial Court Order Upheld

The High Court concluded that the order of the Special Judge, which left the determination of charge modification to the appropriate stage of trial, was well-reasoned and legally sound. The court held that questions regarding the admissibility and evidentiary weight of the alleged proceeds of crime are quintessentially matters for the trial and must be tested during evidence. Finding no manifest illegality or abuse of process, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the trial must proceed to its logical conclusion.

Date of Decision: 07 October 2026