vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1955 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1955 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1955 OF 2008 Shri Anant Shripat Pawar ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.M.K. Kocharekar for Applicant Mr.P.A. Pol, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 23, 2008 JUNE 23, 2008 JUNE 23, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Sessions Court has by its order dated 22.4.2008 dismissed the criminal revision application filed by the applicant herein as being not maintainable. The revision was filed against the order of the JMFC, Bhiwandi framing a charge on 24.11.2006. The learned Sessions Judge has held that framing of a charge is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the revision is not maintainable. The Sessions Judge was of the view that because the charge can always be altered at any point of time during the trial, the order framing the charge is an interlocutory order. 2. It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court that "quasi final" or interlocutory order is one from which a revision is maintainable under section 397 of the : 2 : Cr.P.C. In the case of Madhu Limaye v/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 AIR 1978 SC 47 AIR 1978 SC 47, the Supreme Court has observed that ordinarily the interlocutory order has been understood to be in converse of the term "final order". However, while considering the expression used in section 397 of the Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court has observed that there are some kinds of orders which may fall between the two i.e. final order or the interlocutory order. It is observed that by the rule of harmonious construction, the Court would have to decide whether such an order is a final order or an interlocutory order. In my opinion, having considered the judgments cited at the bar, it is obvious that an order framing a charge would be a final order and not an interlocutory order as understood in its true sense. Although the charge can be modified during the trial it would not necessarily mean that by framing the charge the learned Magistrate has passed an interlocutory order and the order is therefore not revisable. 3. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The revision is remanded for a decision afresh on merits. The proceedings in RCC No.1080 of 2006 are stayed till the decision in the revision. 4. Criminal application is disposed of accordingly.