This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/respondent/accused to set aside the order, dated 31.03.2016 made in Cr.Rev.P.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 31.03.2016 reversing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.298 of 2014 in S.T.C.No.860 of 2012, dated 27.06.2014.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3.The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was taken on file in S.T.C.No. 860 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Madurai. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., in Cr.M.P.No.298 of 2014 to alter the charge from Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to Sections 420 , 468 and 471 of IPC. It was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the ground that no new materials should came into existence through evidence. So, charge cannot be altered and the trial Court dismissed the said petition. 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.RC(MD)No. 747 of 2016

4.Aggrieved by the above said order, the respondent/complainant filed Cr.Rev.P.No.86 of 2014 before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai. The revision was allowed and the learned IV Additional District Judge has directed the learned Judicial Magistrate to alter the charges in Cr.M.P.No.298 of 2014 in S.T.C.No.860 of 2012.

5.Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/respondent has preferred this revision.

6.First of all, this revision is not maintainable, since revision against the order in another revision. Further, as against the order of dismissal passed by the trial Court, the respondent/complainant filed the revision before the learned VI Additional District Judge, which is not maintainable. This view reiterated in the decision of this Court in the case of (H.A.Hurul Firdhouse, represented by her power agent H.A.Abdul Jabbar Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, W-22, All Women Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai and 2 and others) reported in 2010 (3) Madras Weekly Notes (Crl.) 368, wherein it was held that an order passed by the Trial Court dismissing an application filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., cannot be regarded as a final decision and therefore, as against that order, a Criminal Revision Case is not 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.RC(MD)No. 747 of 2016 maintainable. But for the following reasons, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge. Section 216 of Cr.P.C., empowers the Court to alter any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced i.e., only the Court.

7.The only question arises for consideration in this revision case is whether the complainant has a right to file an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., to alter charges and whether such an application is maintainable.

8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court in series of decisions have categorically held that neither the prosecution (complainant) nor the accused have any right to seek for alteration or adding of a charge. It is evident from Section 216 of Cr.P.C. that alteration or amendment or addition of a charge can be done only by the Court.

9.In the case of Krishnammal Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others reported in (2008) Criminal Law Journal 2845, it was held that, “From the conjoint reading of the provisions of the said Sections, it is pellucid that only the Court is having power to frame charge or alter it or add new charges at any time before judgment is 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.RC(MD)No. 747 of 2016 pronounced. Neither the prosecution nor the person interested, has right to file petition by invoking either of the said Sections so as to delete the existing charges or add new charges. In short, either the prosecution or the person interested, has no right to ask the Court either to alter the existing charges or to add new charges.”

10.The above principle was followed by another judgment of this Court in the case of the State represented by the Inspector of Police Vs. K.P.Sankar and Others in Crl.R.C.No.713 of 2015, dated 12.08.2015. The relevant portion of the order in Paragraph Nos.18 and 20 reads as follows:-

The relevant portion of the order in Paragraph No.8 reads as follows:-

11.In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the concerned Court can only alter charges.

12.With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 31.03.2016 in Cr.Rev.P.No.86 of 2014 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, is hereby set aside.

09.07.2021 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No sji Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.

1.The IV Additional District Judge, Madurai.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Madurai.

3. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.RC(MD)No. 747 of 2016 S.ANANTHI, J.

sji Order made in Crl.RC(MD)No. 747 of 2016 09.07.2021 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/