JUDGMENT :

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad in FIR No.290 dated 06.04.2018 under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 506 (Section 120B added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station, Sector 7, District Faridabad, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.2-complainant under Section 216 Cr.P.C. seeking alteration or addition of the charge has been allowed and finding a prima facie case under Section 3 of the 'Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013', committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the aforesaid application moved at the behest of the complainant as the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and modify the charge when such an application is moved by the complainant and that the said power is vested only in the Court which it may invoke inherently.

3. In support of his argument, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and another, reported as 2017 (3) SCC 347. The relevant extract of the same reads thus: -

'5. That apart, learned senior counsel further contended that there was no right in the party before the Trial Court to seek for any order to be passed under Section 216 Cr.P.C., 1973 as a matter of right either for addition or alteration of the charge and the power only vests with the Court and, therefore, the invocation of Section 397 Cr.P.C., 1973 itself was not available to the appellant to question the action of the Trial Court. Learned senior counsel, therefore, contended that the conclusion of the learned Judge in the order impugned in having held that the revision was maintainable was not the correct legal position. Learned senior counsel relied upon the decision in Thakur Ram & Others v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 911, in support of his submission, and submitted that the power available under Section 216 Cr.P.C., 1973 can be exercised only by the Court on its own and no party has any right to seek for passing any orders under the said provision.

xxx xxx xxx

7 We were taken through Sections 221 & 222 of the Cr.P.C. in this context. In the light of the facts involved in this case, we are only concerned with Section 216 Cr.P.C., 1973 We, therefore, do not propose to examine the implications of the other provisions to the case on hand. We wish to confine ourselves to the invocation of Section 216 and rest with that. In the light of our conclusion that the power of invocation of Section 216 Cr.P.C., 1973 is exclusively confined with the Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment, we make it clear that no party, neither de facto complainant nor the accused or for that matter the prosecution has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge, because it is not provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C., 1973 If such a course to be adopted by the parties is allowed, then it will be well nigh impossible for the Criminal Court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy trial will get jeopardized.'

4. Reliance is also placed on the subsequent judgment in the matter of Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported as 2020(1) RCR (Crl) 787. The relevant part is extracted as under:-

'14 In order to adjudicate upon the dispute, it is necessary to refer to section 216 of CrPC, 1973:

(1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

xxx xxx xxx

16. The decision of a two-judge Bench of this Court in P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh, (2017) 3 SCC 347, dealt with a case where