1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 3204/2009 Mr. Suryabhan Sitaramji Ghorpade ..vs.. State of Mah. thr. PSO P.S. Pulgaon,dist. Wardha. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. R. Vyas, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. S. Doifide, A.P.P. for non applicant-State. CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED :- 18 th NOVEMBER,2009 1. This application is directed against order dated 30.01.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 98/2008 by Sessions Judge, Wardha so also order dated 22.04.2008 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 14/2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pulgaon. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that none of the offence which are alleged against the applicant can be attributed in the instant case. learned counsel invited my attention to the contents of First Information Report and submitted that there is no case for framing of charge against the applicant. It is further submitted that none of the ingredients of section 368, 468 2 and other sections are attributed. Learned counsel invited my attention to page no. 40 of the compilation i.e. house- recovery panchanama and submitted that the said panchanama is an inadmissible piece of evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no material received against the applicant on which charge can be framed. Learned counsel further invited my attention to grounds in the application, annexures thereto and stated that this court may interfere in the judgment and order passed by Courts below by setting aside the same. 3. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application and submitted that it is the matter of evidence and the application under Section 482, that too when both the courts are against the applicant, may not be entertained. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the act of harassment of the complainant continues and therefore, question of limitation is also not relevant to the main case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by revisional Court. The revisional Court, after framing specific point for its 3 determination, observed that there are allegations against accused in the FIR and charge-sheet that accused is dealing in illegal money lending business and has obtained blank stamp papers while lending money and was giving threats for recovering money and using the said blank stamp papers against the persons to whom money is given. Therefore, the revisional Court in para 7, after considering the recitals in the complaint and charge-sheet, observed that there is sufficient material before him for framing charge against the applicant. 5. Though, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that none of the sections are attracted against the applicant. On plain reading of the First Information report and other documents annexed to the compilation and on going through reasons given by revisional Court prima facie I find a case for framing of charge. Therefore, no case is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reminded that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and not in routine manner. Both the 4 Courts have applied mind and found that there is material to frame charge against the applicant. Hence, no case is made out. The application is, therefore, rejected. It is made clear that, the observations made in this order or order of the revisional Court may not come in the way of the applicant during the trial. JUDGE kahale