cwp972.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 972 OF 2009 1 Praful s/o Mulchand Brahmecha age 38 years, occ. business r/o Yash Districtutors, Gulmandi Road Aurangabad. 2 Kalandar Yar Khan age 64 years, occ. business r/o Mill Corner, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Aurangabad. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1 Chandanmal s/o Dagdulal Pagaria age 76 years, occ. business r/o Pagaria Colony, Station Road, Aurangabad. 2 The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENTS Mr. V.N. Damle, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Godbharale, APP for the State. Mr. V.I. Thole, advocate for respondent no. 1. ===== CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 11th OCTOBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 Heard by consent. cwp972.09 2 3 Learned Jt. Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Aurangabad passed order on 6-5-2009 in RCC No. 780/2007 after hearing the parties and after completing the evidence before charge and, directed that charge be framed. This order was carried in Revision Application No. 198/2009. The revision has resulted into dismissal. Aggrieved accused person is before this Court. 4 It is seen that the revision application has been dismissed with following observations : “I am satisfied that an order of framing of the charge against accused in this case is purely interlocutory order and as such the revision against the same is not maintainable one under Section 397(2) of the Code of criminal Procedure. My finding as to point No. 1 is in affirmative and as to point No. 2 is in negative.” 5 Learned advocate Mr. V.I. Thole concedes to the legal position that the revision application was liable to be scrutinised on merits and the view that the revision application would not lye, the order under challenge being interlocutory may not be sustained in view of the settled position of law. cwp972.09 3 6 Learned advocate Mr. V.I. Thole further wanted to address the Court on propriety of filing revision, on the fact that the act of framing charge was yet awaited. 7 This Court finds that it would be appropriate to let the issue of objection, if any, undecided for adjudication by the learned Sessions Judge. 8 In view of the foregoing concession and discussion, writ petition succeeds. Rule made absolute as follows : A) Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Petition No. 198/2009 dated 16-09-2009 is quashed and set aside, and revision application is remanded for hearing and disposal on merits. B) Parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Court on 14th November, 2011, on which date the revision application shall be decided in accordance with law. ( A.H. JOSHI ) JUDGE dyb