The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the court's power to alter charges under Section 216 of the Cr. P. C.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a quashing order in respect of criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR No. 269/95, which had alleged commission of offences under Section 323/325/34 IPC.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the petitioner along with two other accused was alleged to have been instrumental in the beating up of one Gurdip Singh, the complainant. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and Gurdip Singh are close relatives; the first petitioner is the nephew of Gurdip Singh and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, his sisters. Apparently, during the course of proceedings other co-accused and the complainant, namely, the mother and the driver who is alleged to have been party to the assault upon the complainant, moved an application for compounding; that was granted. The Court on 22. 03. 00 after considering the materials on record, formed an opinion that charges could framed under Section 323/34 IPC in respect of the petitioners. The Public prosecutor appears to have subsequently moved an application on 26. 10. 02 averring that the MLC indicated grievous hurt. That application as well as another application for dropping of the charges so far as the present petitioner were concerned, was moved.

( 3 ) THE trial Court, by its order dated 28. 07. 03 allowed the application of the prosecution, for invoking the power under Section 216 Cr. P. C. . In course of its order, the Court observed that the Medico Legal Certificate (M. L. C.) which had apparently been overlooked when the charges were framed earlier, had indicated that the injured Gurdip Singh had suffered fracture on his eighth rib. The application of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that dropping of proceedings was not warranted since a cognizable offence was made out. The petitioner carried the order in revision.

( 4 ) THE revisional Court, in its impugned order dated 04. 04. 05 held as follows:

"there is no dispute about legal provision that the Court is not competent to review its order if it has reached finality. Only clerical mistake can be removed/reviewed. Ld. MM. changed charges from 323 IPC to 325 IPC after taking help from section 216 of the Cr. P. C. Sub-Section1 of Section 216 of the cr. P. C, provides that any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. It came to the notice of Ld. trial Court first time, on the application moved by ld. PP, that the injury on the person of gurdeep Singh was of grievous nature. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the earlier charge under Section 323/34 IPC must have been framed after going through the record. Ld. counsel has brought to the notice of the Court the opinion of the doctor dated 06. 06. 95 and 07. 06. 95 wherein it was observed that there was no bone injuries. The X-ray reports with observation that there is no bone injuries are not of Shri Sharan Singh and other two injured. It appears that ld. MM did not consider the report of Shri Gurdeep Singh placed on record wherein it has been clearly mentioned that bone injuries were found on the person of Shri Gurdeep Singh. Inadvertently this report of the doctor was not considered. Section 216 Cr. P. C. permits that court to amend charge at any time if such material is there on the record. Ld. MM found material to come to the conclusion that prima facie case under Section 325/34 IPC is made out. I see no illegality in the finding of Ld. MM. It does not amount to reviewing his earlier order in view of clear provision of Section 216 of Cr. P. C. which authorise the Court to amend the charge at any time. With these observations the petition is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent there with copy of the order. File of this Court be consigned to the record room. "

( 5 ) MR. Tanveer A. Mir, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Courts below erred in framing charges under Section 325 and by invoking of power Section 216 virtually exercised review power, which was plainly impermissibl