JUDGMENT : 

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of an application filed by the petitioners under Sections 216/227 CrPC, 1973, by Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh, vide order dated 14.03.2024, the petitioners came up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.

2. Based on the allegations of corruption, CBI had registered the above captioned FIR against (1) Sh. R.C. Diwan, (2) Sh. S.R. Aggarwal, (3) Sh. B.K. Bansal, (4) Sh. Bishwadeep Dutta, (5) M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. and other unknown persons. Although three public servants were named in the FIR, the CBI launched prosecution only against one public servant, i.e., (A-1) R.C. Diwan, and kept the other two public servants in column no.12 and did not file a charge sheet against them.

3. Vide order dated 23.11.2021, Special Court, CBI Chandigarh framed charges under Sections 120-B r/w 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act against A-1 Ramesh Chander Diwan, Bishwadeep Dutta, Jimmy K Subawalla, Mysa Ganesh, M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Outdoor Communication Pvt. Ltd.

4. Feeling aggrieved, A-1 Mr. R.C. Diwan, Superintending Engineer, filed a criminal revision petition before this Court, challenging the charges framed against him, which was registered as CRR No. 1388 of 2021. Vide judgment dated 15.01.2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had partly allowed the said petition and discharged the accused R.C. Diwan of all the offenses framed under IPC because no sanction was obtained as was mandated under Section 197 CrPC; however, the Court did not disturb the charges framed for offenses punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. A-1 R C Diwan filed an application under Section 216 CrPC, and the petitioners also filed an application under Section 216 read with 227 CrPC seeking to alter the charges. In compliance with the order dated 15.01.2024, passed by this Court, the Trial Court, i.e., Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh vide order dated 19.03.2024, altered the charges, and accordingly, all the offenses punishable under IPC were dropped against accused No.1 R.C. Diwan.

6. Petitioners' grievance is that they have been charged with conspiracy with the officials of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh; however, only one such official, R.C. Diwan, was initially charge-sheeted and although earlier the charges were framed under Section 120-B IPC and other IPC offenses but due to want of sanction, the High Court set aside the charges framed under IPC. After the said order, charges were altered, and all the offenses under IPC were deleted against the main accused, R.C. Diwan, including Criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B IPC. In the altered charge sheet, it has been alleged that the non-official accused conspired with the officials of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, however with whom they conspired is silent because no charges for entering into a criminal conspiracy have not been framed against the officials of Municipal Corporation under Section 120-B IPC.

7. Petitioners' foundational submission is that criminal conspiracy has to be made with an official of the Municipal Corporation and not the posts of the Municipal Corporation. Once the charges of criminal conspiracy do not exist against the Municipal Corporation officials, in the absence of officials of the Municipal Corporation, no charges can be framed against the petitioners, who are not public servants. A criminal conspiracy without entering into any conspiracy with the public servants is meaningless because, in the absence of charges for the criminal conspiracy against the public servants, the private accused could not have conspired with anybody.

8. In a nutshell, the petitioners' grievance is that by altering the charges and substituting the officials of Municipal Corporation while deleting the charges against R.C. Diwan, serious preju