JUDGMENT :

Neeraj Tiwari, J.

Heard Sri Vishesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for State.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 16 in S.T. No. 950 of 2015, arising out of case crime no. 146 of 2015, under sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Kithor, District Meerut.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has moved an application dated 30.01.2018 under section 216 Cr.P.C. for adding charge under section 307 I.P.C. on which learned Magistrate has written note "seen, put up at the stage of arguments." He further submits that after closure of prosecution evidence, applicant has moved an application on 25.01.2019 before the court below for disposal of application dated 30.01.2018, which was rejected on the ground that "order passed before has not been challenged now again the application is moved on same grounds hence rejected." He further submits that the order dated 25.01.2019 is bad and liable to be set aside and direction may be issued to learned Magistrate to decide the application dated 30.01.2018 as well as 25.01.2019 considering the provision of Section 216 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned AGA submits that informant has no right to move any application under section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge at any stage of trial upto pronouncement of judgment. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and another, (2017) 2 SCC(Cri) 84 and on the basis of that submits that applicant has no vested right to move any application for alteration of charge and it is an enabling provision under section 216 Cr.P.C. for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice before pronouncement of judgment. Lastly, he submits that once the application is not maintainable, it is not required for trial court to pass any order under section 216 Cr.P.C. and even application is rejected by the court below, prosecution or defence has no right to challenge the same in light of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi (Supra).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant refuted the argument made by learned AGA and placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2016) CriLJ 1836 and submits that Magistrate is bound to pass order on the application moved by applicant under section 216 Cr.P.C. He has also placed reliance upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ganga Saran Vs. Civil Judge, Hapur, (1991) AIR Allahabad 114 and submits that if there are two judgments on one point, the judgment, which pronounced later shall prevail to earlier judgment. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Harveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 JIC 575 (All) in which both the judgments of the Apex Court i.e. P. Kartikalakshmi (Supra) and Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha (Supra) have been considered. He submits that in that case, court below has refused to alter the charge against which revision was filed, which was allowed and Magistrate was directed to commit the case to sessions court under section 307 I.P.C. Against the order of revisional court, writ petition was filed before this Court, which was also allowed after having discussion of both the judgments given by the Apex Court i.e. P. Kartikalakshmi (Supra) and Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha (Supra). He further submits that the application may be allowed and learned Magistrate may be directed to decide the application of the applicant under section 216 Cr.P.C. on merit. He submits that under the provisions of Cr.P.C., applicant is not remedy-less and he can file appeal under the provisions of Cr.P.C., if application under section 216 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

6. I have considered the rival