1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3130 of 2009 (Dasrao s/o Rambhau Pimpale v. The State of Maharashtra and another) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. M.B.Kolpe, Adv., h/f Mr. V.B.Deshmukh, Adv., for applicant. Mrs.B.R.Khekale, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 24/9/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel. 2. The directions issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dt.10.11.2006, in clause (iv) of the order, to Police Station, Manwat to file chargesheet under Section 211 of IPC against the complainant Dasrao Rambhau Pimple for submitting false information to Police, leading to prosecution of the accused for an offense under Sections 306, 498-A read with 2 Section 34 of IPC, is questioned by the accused. 2. Learned Counsel submits that in terms of the Section 195 of Cr.P.C. it was obligatory for the Court to have itself registered the offense instead of giving such directions. Secondly, principles of natural justice are not adhered as no opportunity was given to the accused to provide his explanation. It was only based on available evidence that the accused stated the facts which defied the recitals in the FIR. 3. At this stage of the matter, I need not to ponder upon the manner in which the evidence was adduced as the same will be tested at proper stage by the learned Judge seized with the matter. The initial report seeking action in terms of Sections 306, 498-A of IPC against the accused being lodged with the Police giving rise to acceleration in Sessions case being Sessions Case No.89/2005. The learned 3 Judge was justified in terms of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. to give such directions to the concerned Police. I do not see any infirmity in the directions of the learned Judge. 4. Needless to add, accused/applicant has all the defenses open to be raised and agitated before the learned Judge seized with the matter. It cannot be said that the principles of natural justice are violated as the accused knew the consequences of his obviation when he retort to the fact which basically was germane in the FIR. Consequently, no merit. Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/3130-09crapl