Bombay High Court
Anant S/O Ramrao Nirmal vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Incharge Ps ... on 26 August, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 25-apl-279-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 279 OF 2021
Anant S/o. Ramrao Nirmal
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through PS Incharge, PS Anjangaon Surji,
Dist. Amravati
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Shri P. S. Wathode, Advocate for applicant.
Shri V. A. Thakre, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State.
CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 26.08.2021
This application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is placed before us in view of
the noting of the Registrar (Judicial), who examined the
matter in view of the directions given by Hon'ble Single
Judge on 14.06.2021.
2. Undisputedly, the learned Magistrate,
Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati framed charge against
the applicant alongwith two others for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468 and 471 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section
65, 66 and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
5(d) of the Official Secrets Act.
RR Jaiswal
2 25-apl-279-21.odt
3. It is also not in dispute that the said framing
of charge was challenged by the present applicant by
approaching the learned Sessions Judge by filing
Criminal Revision No. 11/2020 under Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge-2, Achalpur vide judgment and order
dated 27.01.2021 dismissed the said Revision.
4. After the dismissal of the said Revision, the
applicant filed the present application under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the matter was
listed before the Hon'ble Single Judge, the Hon'ble Single
Judge was of the view that since the application for
discharge was not filed therefore, in substance, the relief
is for quashing of the charge-sheet and therefore, he
directed the Registrar (Judicial) to examine the issue.
5. We have considered the noting given by the
Registrar (Judicial).
6. We are of the view that according to the
learned Magistrate, there was sufficient material to
proceed against the applicant and other co-accused in the
charge-sheet and therefore he framed the charge. The
framing of charge was challenged in the Revision and
that was also dismissed.
7. Obviously, the second Revision is not
permissible and the applicant could not be left remedy-
less and therefore, he filed present proceeding under
RR Jaiswal
3 25-apl-279-21.odt
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this
Court.
8. In our considered view, after framing of
charge, there is no question of challenge to the charge-
sheet. The only way available with the aggrieved person
is to point out before the appropriate Court that without
there being sufficient material in the charge-sheet, error
is committed by the learned Magistrate in framing the
charge for the offence punishable for which he is
charged. In such proceeding, it will be wisdom of the
Revisional Court to test and examine the material placed
before the learned Magistrate for framing of charge. In
this case, the learned Revisional Court found that learned
Magistrate was right in framing the charge.
9. In this context, we are of the view that
essentially the applicant is challenging the order of the
Revisional Court giving stamp of approval on framing of
charge and therefore, in our view, the matter will have to
be placed before the learned Single Judge.
10. Hence, Registry to place this matter before
the Hon'ble Single Judge for appropriate consideration.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
