1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 565 OF 2009 Tarun Jamnadas Shah .. Petitioner. V/s. Smt. Sunita Ramesh Soni & Anr. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Ashok Dhamija for the Petitioner. Mr.I.B. Singh for Respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. --- CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : JUNE 15, 2009 P. C. :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is the accused. On a complaint filed by the first respondent, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing that the charge be framed against the petitioner under sections 406 and 409 of 2 the Indian Penal Code. A revision application was filed by the petitioner for challenging the said order. 3. One of the grievances made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Sessions Court while dealing with the revision application has proceeded on erroneous assumption that the charge has been ordered to be framed under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC; whereas under the impugned order it was directed that the charge is to be framed under section 406 and 409 of the IPC. He pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge has considered merits of the case under section 420 of the I.P.C. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions Court. In paragraph 3 of the judgment, the learned Judge has observed that the learned Magistrate has ordered that the charge for the offence punishable under sections 409 and 420 of the I.P. Code be framed. The same observation is made in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment and order. Paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment also shows that the learned Sessions Judge was under an impression that the charge under section 420 has been ordered to be framed. Thus there is non-application of mind on the part of the learned Sessions Judge. 3 5. Considering the fact that the learned Judge has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the learned Magistrate has ordered charge to be framed under section 420 of the IPC, instead of keeping this petition pending in this court for final hearing , interests of justice will be served if the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to hear and decide the revision application filed by the petitioner afresh. 6. Hence, the impugned order dated 27th of January, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby quashed and set aside and the Criminal Revision Application No. 1054 of 2008 is restored to the file of the learned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court will hear the Criminal Revision Application afresh and decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the Revision Application shall be heard afresh after notice to all the concerned parties. The Revision Application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st of October, 2009. All contentions on merits are expressly kept open. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. (A.S.OKA,J.)