The overriding effect of the I.T. Act and the quashing of Section 66-A by the Supreme Court influenced the court's decision to alter the charges.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order dated 27.02.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial Court, vide which application filed by the prosecution/petitioner under Section 216 Cr.P.C., 1973 for alteration of the charge, was dismissed and also for quashing of the order dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure P9) passed by the revisional Court, vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had given a complaint and on the basis of the same, FIR No.85 dated 21.06.2010 under Section 469 IPC and Section 66 of Information and Technology Act, Police Station Odhan, District Sirsa was registered that some persons have created email account (DS MOR) in the name of the petitioner and are sending mischievous complaints through this email account, to higher authorities, using mischievous language. After registration of the FIR, police conducted the investigation and on receiving the information from the service providers i.e. yahoo.in and BSNL, it was found that IP address of broadband cell of BSNL used for the aforesaid purpose was found in the name of Kavita, wife of respondent No.1-accused Navdeep Singh and one Satish Kumar, who was running an internet booth. The police thereafter recommended to register the FIR under Section 469 IPC and Section 66-A of I.T. Act.

3. During the investigation, respondent No.2 Navdeep Singh was arrested and the police recorded his disclosure statement and recovered the laptop set and broadband modem. After completing the investigation, challan was presented and the trial Court, vide order dated 16.01.2012, framed charge against the respondent-accused under Section 66-A of I.T. Act for sending mischievous complaints to higher authorities by using email account (DS MOR ) in the name of complainant Dr. Devender Singh, Director Principal of Chaudhary Devi Lal Memorial Engineering College, Panniwala Mota. The accused was a Professor in the said institute. The trial Court also framed charge under Section 469 IPC for forging the electronic record by creating email account (DS MOR ) with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. The respondent did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution led its evidence and thereafter, moved an application for alteration of charges and for framing the charge under Sections 419, 468, 500, 501 IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 11.11.2016 observing that no prima facie evidence for the offence punishable under the offences as stated in the application is made out. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Court of Sessions, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition as per law after recording some evidence.

5. The prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 for production of the laptop as case property in the Court, which was partly allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CRM-M-42075-2016, which was decided on 29.11.2016, by passing the following order: -

"By virtue of the instant petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 petitioner has sought quashing of impugned order dated 14.09.2015 (Annexure P6) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali, whereby an application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been partly allowed but revision petition preferred by the prosecution has been declined in respect of production of laptop/case property in the court.

A close scrutiny of the impugned order transpires that the laptop was recovered from accused-respondent No.1- Navdeep Singh during investigation of the case registered against him and its production in the court was necessary for providing full opportunity of being heard to the prosecution. Due to certain reasons, prosecution failed to produce the said laptop during the period, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. It can be termed