1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No.1730/2009 (Shyamsundar Bhagwandas Lalwani .vrs. Dr. Shalini Harish Bawankar) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Smt. Kalyani R. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : JULY 7, 2009 Heard. By present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. applicant/accused facing prosecution in Criminal Complaint Case No.91/2005 pending before Court of JMFC, Court No.7, Nagpur has prayed for quashing and setting aside charge allegedly framed on 8.8.2005 under Sections 294, 323, 354 and 509 of Indian Penal Code with certain incidental reliefs. The application discloses that said case is instituted upon complaint filed by respondent in said court. It is the grievance of learned counsel for applicant that proceedings filed before trial court is a private 2 complaint and learned trial court has committed error and illegality by framing charge against accused without recording evidence before charge and without giving an opportunity to accused to be heard upon framing of charge. It is also her further grievance of trial court having further committing irregularity in granting application for issuance of summons to witnesses. Learned counsel for applicant by placing reliance to decision in a case of Prabhakar s/o Krushnaji Deshmukh .vrs. Subhash s/o Jasraj Karnawat and another, reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 710 has urged for allowing application and setting aside charge allegedly framed at Exh.12. After giving thoughtful consideration to submission advanced by learned counsel for applicant and considering annexure “C” filed along with petition which inter alia reveals that on 8.8.2005 Presiding Officer has only explained the accusation to applicant and had effected to record of same. Having regard to same and having regard to fact that offences for which the case was registered are punishable for a punishment not exceeding imprisonment for a term of two years, it is crystal clear that court was bound to follow 3 procedure prescribed for trial for summons of cases by Magistrate i.e. procedure prescribed under Sections 251 to 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having regard to same, it is difficult to accept of there being any substance in submission canvassed. The procedure followed by lower court cannot be faulted with. The procedure prescribed for such cases clearly reveals that court was empowered to explain to accused accusation against him rather than framing charge for such case and thereafter proceed to record prosecution evidence. Now with regard to decisions relied by learned counsel for applicant and observations in paragraph 13 of said decision, submission cannot be accepted that the said decision lays down any law that in every private case the procedure prescribed for warrant triable cases is to be followed. In view of same, the application devoid of merits deserved to be and hence stands dismissed. JUDGE Gulande