The power to alter or add charges can be exercised at any time before judgment is pronounced.

1. The de facto Complainant in C.C. No.10889 of 2008 pending on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is the Petitioner in the Criminal Revision case. The First Respondent is the State represented by Police. Respondents 2 to 4 are Accused in the said case.

2. The above said case came to be taken on file on the basis of the final report of the Investigating Officer in Crime No.3 of 2008, a case registered on the file of W22, All Women Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai. Final report was submitted alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 406, IPC alone. In the middle of the trial, namely after examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 in chief-examination alone (cross-examination deferred), the de facto Complainant, who also figured as P.W.1, chose to file a Petition purporting to be one under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. praying for framing of additional charges for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 498-A, IPC and also for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said Petition was numbered as M.P. No.10337 of 2008 on the file of the above said Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge after hearing, passed the order which is sought to be impugned in the present Revision. The said order was passed on 09.02.2010. In the said order, the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate has expressed an opinion that the question of framing additional charges would not arise at that stage of the proceeding when P.Ws.1 and 2 alone had been partly examined and several other witnesses were to be examined then and in consonance with the opinion, dismissed the said Miscellaneous Petition by the impugned order dated 09.02.2010.

3. Mr. A. Kumaraguru, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Court below, without properly appreciating the materials available in the case record, erroneously rejected the prayer for framing of additional charges arid that hence the defect in the finding of the Court below as to the question of framing of additional charge has got to be rectified and corrected by this Court in exercise of its Revisional power.

4. Per contra, Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing the Respondents 2 to 4 (Accused) submits that there is nothing illegal or impropriety in the order passed by the trial Court; that the order passed by the Trial Court cannot be termed either a final order or an intermediary order, in short not an interlocutory order so as to make a Revision against the order maintainable and that the present Revision Petition should be dismissed.

5. In the light of the facts and circumstances under which the present Revision came to be filed, it is not necessary to traverse the facts in detail. The present Revision Case can be disposed of purely on legal grounds. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is “whether framing a charge for a particular offence, omission to frame a particular charge, refusing to frame an additional charge, can be termed not an interlocutory order so that a Revision against such order will lie?” The second question that arises for consideration is “At what stage the question of framing of additional charge can be raised by the prosecution or by the de facto Complainant, who figures as a witness for the prosecution?” Resolution of these two questions will be enough for the disposal of the present Revision Case.

6. Admittedly, based on the Complaint of the Petitioner herein/de facto Complainant, the Police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2008 on the file of W22, All Women Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai for an offence under Section 406, IPC alone. To hold all the Accused responsible for the said offence Section 34, IPC was also mentioned. The Petitioner was not aggrieved by the registration of the case for the offence under Section 406, IPC alone. If at all the Petitioner did have the grievance against it, she could have taken appropriate steps to seek a direction to the Police to register the cas