To attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document. The court also emphasized the importance of providing due opportunity to address arguments and the limitations at the stage of framing of charge.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"(a) set-aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Sanjay Bansal, Ld. ASJ-03 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 09 of 2015;

(b) grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice including quashing of directions to register FIR against the petitioner/complainant himself which was passed by the Ld. Trial Magistrate by his order dated 27.10.2014."

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Vishal Gupta (respondent No. 2 herein) had induced the complainant Vijay Pal Sharma (petitioner herein) to purchase a plot bearing No. C-56 B, area measuring 50 sq. yards in Khasra No. 279, Village Saroda Banger, C-Block, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. Complainant/petitioner agreed to purchase the said plot for Rs.7,80,000/- and advanced a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2 as earnest money.

3. Further, on 08.05.2006, petitioner/complainant paid the remaining amount of Rs.6,80,000/- to the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 executed irrevocable GPA in favour of the petitioner/complainant which was duly registered. It was alleged by the petitioner/complainant that possession of the plot was not immediately handed over but respondent No. 2 agreed to hand over the same on demand of the petitioner/complainant. Later on, when petitioner/complainant demanded possession of the plot, respondent No. 2 refused the same.

4. On 01.08.2012, when petitioner/complainant visited the said plot, he found that possession of the same was with another person. Petitioner/complainant contacted the respondent No. 2 but he refused to hand over the possession of the said plot to the petitioner/complainant. Thereafter in January, 2013 petitioner/complainant again went to the house of the respondent No. 2 and demanded possession of the plot or return of his money to which respondent No. 2 allegedly threatened the complainant. Subsequently, case FIR No. 404/2013 U/s 420/406/506 IPC was registered against the respondent No. 2 on 25.08.2013 at PS New Ashok Nagar, Delhi and consequently, charge sheet was filed. The magistrate after going through the charge sheet framed charges U/s 420/467/468/471 IPC against respondent No. 2.

5. It is averred in the petition that the trial magistrate without any allegations or without any application/complaint of any person, directed the police to register FIR against the petitioner while he was directing to frame charges against respondent No. 2 for offences U/s 420/468/467/471 IPC.

6. Thereafter respondent No. 2 challenged the order on charge dated 27.10.2014 by filing a revision petition. It is averred in the present petition that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the Ld. Revisional Court decided the revision petition vide its order dated 02.03.2015, whereby charges U/s 467/468/471 IPC were deleted. It is further averred that Ld. Revisional Court bypassed the mandate of Section 401 (2) R/w Section 399 (2) Cr.P.C. and also bypassed the procedure of alteration of charge as contained U/s 216 Cr.P.C.

7. The petitioner thereafter preferred a Crl. M.C. 3015/2015 before this Court and this Court vide its order dated 18.05.2016 set aside the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Ld. Revisional Court and the case was remanded back to the Revisional Court to hear it a fresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8. It is further averred in the petition that the matter was taken up by the revisional court of Sessions on 15.07.2016, and again without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/complainant the Ld. Revisional Court passed the impugned order dated 15.07.2016.

9. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 15.07.2016 on the various grounds interalia contending that the impugn