' A case under section 337-A(ii)F(i)/354/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioners vide F.I.R.
No,241 of 1995 registered at Police Station Saddar, Gujrat for an occurrence which took place on 17- 7-1995 at about 7-30 p.m. In which Mst. Zarina Asif i,e,, respondent No,2 was assaulted by them and her shirt was torn off. The case was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate for trial which came up for hearing before Malik Ghazanfar Ali Awan, M.I.C., Gujrat who made an order on 24-12-1995, whereby, he amended the charge from section 354, P.P.C. To 354-A, P.P.C. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, a revision petition was filed in the Court of Session which was also dismissed vide order, dated 22-5-1996 passed by Syed Ijaz Hussain Rizvi, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat.
2. Feeling aggrieved of the above two orders, the present petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved for their quashment on the ground that the trial amounted to an abuse of process of the Court. In this regard, it was contended that the complainant Mst. Zarina Asif never stated in the F.I.R.
That after her shirt was torn, her person was exposed to the public. However, she made an improvement while she was examined during trial as she added in the examination-in-chief that the accused had torn her entire shirt and had stripped her naked in the public. It was, therefore, contended that such improvement should have not presented any justification for the trial Court to amend the charge so as to substitute section 354-A, P.P.C. For section 354, P.P.C. Which was initially applied in the light of the contents of the F.I.R. It was, therefore, contended that the order amending the charge and sending up the case to the Court of Session under section 190(3), Cr.P.C. Was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and as such, the orders passed by the learned trial Magistrate and the Court of Revision were not maintainable in the eyes of law.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Has opposed this petition on the ground that the Court is competent to amend the charge in view of the provisions contained in section 227, Cr.P.C. At any time, and that discretion has been rightly .Exercised by the learned trial Court after taking into account the statement made before him by the complainant as a P.W. As such, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate or by the learned provisional Court so as to say that there was an abuse of the process of the Court.
4. I have considered the foregoing contentions raised at the Bar. It is clear from the provisions contained in section 227, Cr.P.C. That any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It, therefore, follows that a discretion is vested in the Court to amend, alter or add to the charge already framed by it. In the instant case, the learned trial Magistrate took into consideration the statement made before him by the complainant as a P.W. In which she clearly deposed that her shirt was totally torn off by the accused persons and she was exposed in the public after she was made nude. The mere fact that exposure to the public or rendering her nude was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Would not take away the discretion of the Magistrate to amend the charge if the evidence comes to that effect before him. Even otherwise, the F.I.R. Is not an encyclopedia so as to include each and every detail of the incident reported therein. Anyhow, the effect of the alleged improvement can only be successfully gone into after recording the entire evidence at the time of its evaluation while deciding the case finally. Any comments on the point in issue at this stage may prejudice the trial Court. It is enough to say that the Magistrate had exercised his discretion while remaining within law to amend the charge after evidence to that effect had come up before him. As he had found after amendment of the charge that the case was tribal by a Court of Session, therefore, he had rightly utilized the provisions contained in section 190(3), Cr.P.C. To send up the same to the aforesaid Court. As such, there is no fanciful or indiscriminate use of the judicial discretion by any of the Courts below nor there is any misuse or abuse of the legal process so as to frustrate the ends of justice. The petition for abashment under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is, therefore, totally misconceived and the same is dismissed.