1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1017 of 2010 (Dhananjay Atmaram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri D.P. Thakre, APP for Respondent. Coram : R.M. Borde, J. Dated : 8 th July, 2010 This application is directed against the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below in respect of framing of charge against the applicant/accused under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has directed framing of charge under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant/accused. The order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate was subjected to challenge before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2009. After perusal of the record, the revisional Court did not find it necessary to cause interference in the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. I have perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Considering the interlocutory stage of the proceedings and considering that the learned Trial Magistrate has, on considering the material before him, directed framing of charge under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the applicant/accused at this stage. 2 The impugned orders passed by the Courts below do not call for interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application stands rejected. Judge. pdl.