ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 17-07 -2007 passed in C.F.R. No. 3337 of 2007 in C.C. No. 368 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of Class, Kandukur, wherein the learned Magistrate allowed the memo filed by the prosecution partly and directed framing of additional charge against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act"). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the police against the petitioners-A-1 to A-3 and the same was registered as FIR for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners-A-1 to A-3 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in C.C. No. 368 of 2001. During the course of trial, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed memo in C.F.R. No. 3337 of 2007 to add additional charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act in view of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that the accused received dowry at the time of marriage and demanded additional dowry. Learned Magistrate after hearing both sides, allowed the said memo and directed framing of additional charge under Section 4 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present petition. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that taking cognizance of offence under Section 4 of the Act almost seven years after the marriage, which took place in the year 2000, is barred by limitation in view of the Rule5(c) of A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules (for short 'the Rules'), which prescribed the period of one year. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that under Section 216 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate is empowered to frame additional charge at any time before pronouncement of judgment. 6. Section 216 (1) Cr.P.C. states that 'any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced'. A perusal of the above provision would show that it is couched in wide terms giving ample powers to the Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. 6. Section 216 (1) Cr.P.C. states that 'any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced'. A perusal of the above provision would show that it is couched in wide terms giving ample powers to the Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The use of the expression 'any' three times in the above provision would indicate the wide scope and amplitude of the powers conferred on the Court to alter the charge or add additional charge. 7. In 'Hasanbai and others v. State of Gujarat the apex Court held that 'adding or alteration of charge during the trial is permissible if the Court is satisfied that it is necessary to do so'. It is the duty of the Court to frame appropriate charges an ensure that the trial does not proceed on imperfect or erroneous charges. Rule 5(c) of the Rules, stipulates that the complaint shall be made either on the demand of dowry or accepting dowry within a period of one year and Rule 5(b) states that the trial or enquiry shall be the place, where the complainant is residing. It is to be noted that the complaint was given by 2nd respondent alleging the offences under Section 498-A IPC an also making allegation pertaining to the offence under Section 4 of the Act. The learned Magistrate has noted that in the report Ex.P-1 there is allegation of demand of additional dowry. In the evidence also P.Ws. 1 to 3 have deposed about the same and they were cross-examined on this aspect as well. The alleged offence under Section 498-A I PC is said to have taken place at Kandukuru, where the accused and the complainant were residing. The complaint was therefore rightly given to the police at Kandukuru. Simply because subsequently the complainant has shifted her residence to Ongole on account of the alleged harassment, she cannot be expected to give another complaint to the police at Ongole regarding the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act and initiate parallel proceedings. When the complaint was given to the proper police having jurisdiction, the said police are required to investigate into the allegations pertaining to all the alleged offences and file charge sheet in respect of those offences, in support of which necessary evidence is to be collected during the investigation. When the complaint was given to the proper police having jurisdiction, the said police are required to investigate into the allegations pertaining to all the alleged offences and file charge sheet in respect of those offences, in support of which necessary evidence is to be collected during the investigation. The learned Magistrate at Kandukuru had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly, the same was taken on file. By virtue of the provisions under Section 216 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate is certainly empowered to alter or add a charge at any time when he finds that such alteration or addition is necessary. In fact, Section 216 Cr.P.C. does not even require the learned Magistrate to record his decision for making alteration or addition of charge. The wide powers conferred on the learned Magistrate under Section 216 Cr.P.C. in the matter of addition of new charges or alteration of existing charges are not controlled by the provision under Rule5(b-c) of the Rules. The said Rules will have application to such cases, where a complaint is filed alleging the offences under Section Dowry Prohibition Act and to facilitate the victirT1s of the evil of dowry, which was stipulated in Rule 5(b) that place of enquiry shall be at the place where the complainant is residing and in order to protect the interest of the accused, limitation of one year was prescribed in filing such a complaint, which is filed under the provisions of the Act or Rules. Rule 10 of the Rules states that any offence under Section 3 and 4 or any dispute under Section 6 of the Act shall be tiled before expiry of one year and the same shall be finalized within two years from the date of filing. According to the complainant and her witnesses, the demand for additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- persisted even after she was sent out of the house. As the material on record and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, prima facie discloses the ingredients of the offence under Section 4 of the Act, the learned Magistrate exercising his powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C. has rightly directed addition of charge under Section 4 of the Act. 1,00,000/- persisted even after she was sent out of the house. As the material on record and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, prima facie discloses the ingredients of the offence under Section 4 of the Act, the learned Magistrate exercising his powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C. has rightly directed addition of charge under Section 4 of the Act. The accused would naturally have right to defend them selves against additional charge by raising all the defences permissible under law including the defence of limitation and are also entitled to recall of P.Ws. 1 to 3 for further cross-examination, if they so desire. The learned Magistrate shall, however, dispose of the case on merits without being influenced by the observations made herein above. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate directing framing of additional charge under Section 4 of the Act. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.