Disabled Advocate’s Bid To Add RPwD Act Charge Over Alleged Threat To Break His Other Leg Fails; Gujarat HC Imposes ₹5,000 Costs

The petitioner, the original complainant and a person with a locomotor disability, lodged an FIR alleging that the accused abused and threatened him, including by saying they would break his remaining leg.

The police filed a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 504, 294(kh), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, but not Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner’s application under Section 216 CrPC to add that charge was rejected by the Magistrate on 11 April 2022 and by the Sessions Court in revision on 6 July 2024.

Section 92(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 criminalises intentionally insulting or intimidating a person with a disability, with intent to humiliate, in a place within public view; Section 92(b) addresses assault or use of force against such a person with intent to dishonour him or outrage the modesty of a woman with a disability.

Under Section 216 CrPC, a court may alter or add a charge at any time before judgment, where supported by the material on record and subject to safeguards against prejudice to the accused. That power is vested in the court; a party has no right to demand its exercise in a particular manner (*P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh*, (2017) 3 SCC 347; *Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana*, (2016) 6 SCC 105).

The High Court’s Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction does not warrant interference absent patent illegality or material infirmity in the orders below.

The Court considered the FIR’s allegations that the accused threatened to break the petitioner’s other leg and that others gathered at the scene. It concluded that the FIR did not disclose the necessary ingredients of Section 92, including the requisite intent to humiliate or dishonour on account of disability and, for Section 92(a), commission of the act in a place within public view.

The Court also held that Section 216 CrPC conferred a discretionary power on the trial court, not an enforceable right in the complainant to compel addition of a specific charge. Finding no patent illegality or material infirmity in the decisions below, it declined to intervene under Article 227.

The Court imposed costs of ₹5,000, payable by the petitioner to the District Legal Services Authority, Patan, within 15 days of receipt of the order; in default, the amount was made recoverable as a fine and as arrears of land revenue.