' Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakislan, 1973, the petitioner seeks transfer of investigation in case F.I.R. No.32 of 2004 registered on 26-1-2004 under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) at Police Station Sarai Sidhu District, Khanewal on the application of the petitioner.
2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R. Is that respondent No.4 Nasir caught hold of the petitioner from her arm and tried to open the string of her shalwar by force in order to commit zina with her. Due to the arrival of the witnesses as a result of the hue and cry of the petitioner, said accused left her and fled away from the place of occurrence. The petitioner also moved application to the learned Sessions Judge, for the transfer of the investigation which has been dismissed vide order dated 17- 2-2004.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the supplementary statement of the petitioner is not being recorded by the police inspite of the fact that her correct version was not recorded in her statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. Which was not read over to her before she thumb-marked the same and opinion of the police that the offence under section 354, P.P.C. Is only made out according tO the contents of F.I.R. Is not correct but according to the facts and circumstances of the case offence under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 is clearly made out and the petitioner intends to produce the witnesses before the Investigating Officer for recording their correct version.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The F.I.R. Was recorded on 26- 1-2004. If the police after the investigation lin come to the conclusion that offence under section 354, P.P.C., is made out instead of section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979 an:: challan is submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate, even then the learned trial Court has to see at the time of framing of charge as to what offence was committed by the accused-petitioner according to the evidence collected by the police and the Court is not bound by the opinion of the police. Moreover, the Court is empowered to amend the charge at any time before pronouncement of judgment, if from the evidence so recorded at the trail any other offence is found to have been committed and can also send the case to the competent authority for its transfer to the Court of competent jurisdiction if the offence so made out is not triable by him.
5. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner wants to make a supplementary statement to get recorded her correct version before the police. The learned counsel has failed to point out any provision in the law to permit recording of such statement. It is generally noticed that it has become tendency in this region that after the recording of the F.I.R.
Another version is introduced through the supplementary statement which cannot be appreciated as a matter of routine and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation or the contents of the F.I.R., she can file a private complaint which is also adequate and efficacious remedy.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.