Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A & 221---Quashing of order---Amendment of charge---Scope---Complainant lodged FIR against the petitioner for offences under Ss.382, 506, 148 & 149, P.P.C---Trial Court framed the charge for offences under Ss.382 & 506, P.P.C against the petitioners---Complainant instituted a criminal revision petition against the said order, which was accepted and Trial Court was directed to frame charge for offences under Sections 395, 455, 148 & 149, P.P.C---Validity---According to FIR on 17.04.2024 at about 09:00 A.M. petitioners (accused) along with 22/25 unknown culprits, all armed with rifles/pistols, emerged at the petrol pump of complainant---Said accused persons took staff members of the petrol pump as hostages on arm's point and removed CCTV cameras as well as cash amount of Rs.950,000/- and account books forcibly---Said accused persons also snatched arms held by security guards, cheque book and other valuable documents and fled away from the scene---Charge always has to be framed on the prima facie averments of allegations levelled in the FIR, statement of the witnesses under S.161, of Cr.P.C. and report under S.173, of Cr.P.C.---Offence under S.382, P.P.C and under S.395, P.P.C relate to the same family of the offences, as such from the prima facie averments of contents of the FIR, statements of the witnesses recorded under S.161, of Cr.P.C. and report under S.173, of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court was supposed to frame the charge for more graver and serious offence---In the case in hand offences under Ss.395/455/148/149, P.P.C were prima facie made out, as such this fact was rightly observed and taken into consideration by the Revisional Court, while passing the impugned order, which was found to be fully in consonance with the facts and law---Petition was dismissed, in limine. Ghulam Haider Buriro v. The State 2018 MLD 469 rel. Rana Muhammad Javed Iqbal for Petitioners. Ashfaq Ahmad Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Nasir Hussain, S.I. for the State. Muhammad Fayyaz Mansab for the Complainant. Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J .--- The order dated 30.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jahanian was assailed through the present petition, whereby a criminal revision moved by respondent No.2/complainant against an order dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Magistrate framing the formal charge, was accepted and order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.11.2024, was set aside and request for amendment in the charge was allowed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- Ss. 173 & 190 --- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 382, 395, 455, 148 & 149 --- Framing/amendment of charge --- Scope and judicial discretion --- Legal propriety of revisional court’s direction to amend charge to include graver offences Framing of charge is based on prima facie assessment of the contents of the F.I.R., statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., and the police report under S.173, Cr.P.C. In the present case, the Magistrate had originally framed a charge under Ss. 382 and 506, P.P.C., but the revisional court (Additional Sessions Judge) set aside that order and directed framing of charge under Ss. 395, 455, 148 and 149, P.P.C., which carry graver punishment. Petitioners challenged this direction through the instant petition. The High Court held that in terms of settled law, if a less serious charge is framed, the accused cannot be convicted of a graver offence unless the charge is amended, and opportunity is afforded to parties. However, where a graver charge is framed, and evidence establishes a lesser included offence, conviction may be recorded without a fresh trial. Since offences under Ss. 382 and 395, P.P.C. belong to the same family of offences, and the contents of the F.I.R. alleged armed entry into a petrol pump by 22–25 accused, hostaging of staff, removal of cash, CCTV equipment, cheque book, and weapons, the revisional court rightly found a prima facie case under Ss. 395, 455, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Reference was made to Ghulam Haider Buriro v. The State (2018 MLD 469). The High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the revisional court’s order. Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine.