RAJESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Rakesh Kumar @ Bablu.

(2.) The instant criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dtd. 13/10/2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Aurangabad in Aurangabad Cyber P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023, G.R. No. 2074 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf of the informant, for taking into consideration the occurrence of 24/5/2024, while framing the charge, has been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the informant of Aurangabad Cyber P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023 which was lodged on 4/8/2023 under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 66 D of I.T. Act. The petitioner was cheated of an amount of Rs.5,60,600.00. Subsequently, the informant/petitioner received another fraudulent call on 23/5/2024 asking him to do certain things for claiming the defrauded amount and the collar himself introduced to be an official of cyber cell. The petitioner immediately informed the police authorities and consequently, accused Rakesh @ Bablu was apprehended on 24/5/2024 and seizure list was prepared for the article seized from the accused. The confession of the accused was also recorded. Learned counsel thus submits that the arrest of the accused, recording of his confessional statement and preparation of seizure list are part of same transaction, arising out of FIR of Aurangabad Cyber P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023. The charge sheet has been submitted on 21/7/2024 taking into consideration all the occurences which have taken place from 22/6/2023 till the arrest of the accused Rakesh Kumar @ Bablu on 24/5/2024 and thereafter, cognizance has been taken on 26/7/2024 under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 66D of I.T. Act. However, when the charges were framed on 21/8/2024, the period of occurrence was specified from 22/6/2023 till 28/7/2023, omitting the incident of 23/5/2024 without assigning any specific reason. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the informant/petitioner on 16/9/2025 for addition/alteration of charge taking into accounts the incident of 23/5/2024 as the part of same transaction. But the learned trial court vide order dtd. 13/10/2025 rejected the prayer for addition/alteration of charge which is under challenge.