JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

CRM-28451-2023

The present application has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to place reply of respondent No.2, by way of affidavit, on the record.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the reply tendered by respondent No.2 is taken on record.

CRM-M-8380-2023

1. This present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana whereby the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was allowed in the case stemming from complaint bearing no. COMI/00248/2015 dated 29.01.2014 filed under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.2 had previously filed FIR No.132 dated 10.06.2011 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Division No.5 Ludhiana City alleging that the petitioner and his brother had forged his signatures and transferred his 7900 shares to some other persons. However, a cancellation report was presented when the FSL report concluded that the forged signatures on the transfer slip do not match the handwriting of the petitioner or his brother. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved the complaint (supra) and the learned trial Court summoned the petitioner and his brother for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC vide order dated 18.11.2017 (Annexure P-4). Charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC vide order dated 01.06.2019 (Annexure P-5). Subsequently, respondent No.2 moved an application dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) under Section 216 Cr.P.C. seeking amendment of charges to include Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The same was allowed vide impugned order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-8) and the petitioner was additionally charged for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that neither the summoning order nor the order framing charges was ever challenged by respondent No.2. The application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was moved by respondent No.2, after four years when charges were initially framed against the petitioner. Further, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that a cancellation report was moved, on the basis of the conclusions drawn by the FSL, with respect to the FIR registered on the same allegations. Moreover, during investigation, it was realized that the amount for sale of 7900 shares, allegedly sold by the petitioner, was deposited in the account of respondent No.2. As such, the learned trial Court has erred in entertaining the complaint (supra) as well as allowing the said application as no wrongful loss has been caused to respondent No.2. Further still, respondent No.2 cannot cause the learned trial Court to review its own order under the garb of Section 216 Cr.P.C., as the same is impermissible in law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh 2017(3) SCC 347.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner and his brother fraudulently transferred 3500 shares to one Narinderjit Singh by forging the signature of respondent No.2. They also transferred 4400 shares to Balwant Kaur, mother of the petitioner. In fact, the 3500 shares were later transferred from Narinderjit Singh to Balwant Kaur. He further submits that cancellation report was filed in the FIR case because of the influence exerted by the petitioner and his brother. Moreover, the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. by passing a well reasoned order. It must be noted that Section 216 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any time limit for alteration of charges. It is settled law that the trial Court has unrestricted power to alter charges at any stage before the