* 1 * W.P. 2919.2010 23.11.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2919 OF 2010 Shri. Pandharinath @ Uday Bhalchandra Bhagwat .... Petitioner v/s. 1. Shri. Prafulla Dattatray Phadke & Ors .... Respondents * * * * Mr. K.K. Malpathak,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/by. Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State-respondent no.3. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 23 November, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 24th September, 2010 passed by the Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane dismissing Criminal Revision Application No. 114 of 2010 filed by the petitioner. The Revision Application was to challenge the order dated 22nd June, 2010 passed by the Trial Court i.e. the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane rejecting the * 2 * W.P. 2919.2010 23.11.2010 application filed by the petitioner for making corrections in the charge framed on 11th May, 2005. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The counsel agree for final disposal of the petition at the stage of admission. 3. Perusal of the record i.e. the complaint filed and the charge framed, makes it obvious that there is an error in the framing of charge. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners wrote two letters to the mother of respondent no.1 which contained defamatory statements. According to the petitioners, the error in the charge is in respect of both the alleged defamatory statements. Mr. Malpathak, however, is restricting the correction to the first alleged defamatory statement. The letter dated 20th May, 2003 written to the mother of the respondent states that about 2 years back, the respondent had gone to the tenanted premises when the mother removed him therefrom by making a complaint to the police. The charge as framed refers to removal of the respondent from the tenanted premises by himself and not by the mother. Therefore, an application was filed by the petitioners to the trial court for correction of the errors in the charge. The * 3 * W.P. 2919.2010 23.11.2010 respondent did not oppose the same. The trial court dismissed the application, strangely holding that there is no error in the charge. The petitioners met with further misfortune when their criminal revision application preferred against the order was dismissed by the District Court with costs. The petitioners were directed to pay costs quantified at Rs.500/- to the respondent. 4. In view of the obvious error in the charge, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24th September, 2010 passed by the Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane dismissing Criminal Revision Application No. 114 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. The order of the trial court dated 22nd June, 2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane in Regular Criminal Case No. 247 of 2004 below Exhibit-92 is set aside. The charge framed on 11th May, 2005 is corrected. The word you” in the fifth line of the charge, is replaced by the word “ Shailaja Bhalchandra Bhagwat, your mother”. “ [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]