1 Cri.Appl.No.911 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.911 OF 2011 Madan S/o.Dattatraya Solanke and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.R.S.Shinde h/f.Mr.N.L.Chaudhari, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 22/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for quashing of Criminal Proceeding arising out of Crime No. 85/2010, registered with Majalgaon Police Station of Dist. Beed, wherein after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed numbered as 90/2010. Then the trial was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon. It is also informed that on being committed the trial to the Court of Sessions, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the applicants and others and now the trial is already commenced, and thereafter the applicants have approached this Court for quashing of the proceeding u/s.482 of The Cr.P.C. 2 Cri.Appl.No.911 of 2011 2. In the criminal procedure, procedure is laid down as to how the trials to be conducted in the Court of Sessions. At the time of framing of charge and hearing, the learned Sessions Court to hear Public Prosecutor, who is conducting the Sessions trial u/s. 226 of the Cr.P.C., at the same time, learned Additional Sessions Judge also require to hear the defence on the point of discharge, if any, u/s. 227 and u/s. 228 of The Cr.P.C. On hearing learned P.P. and the learned defence lawyer and on preliminary analysis of the material available, learned Additional Sessions Judge to frame the charge and then to proceed with the trial. As per the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, that stage is over. Admittedly, no application was moved by the defence on behalf of these applicants before the Trial Court i.e. Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, praying for discharge u/s. 227 of The Cr.P.C. and after the commencement of the trial, now the applicants have approached this Court for quashing of the proceeding u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C., which is not permissible in law. Now that stage had gone. 3. In the premise, as at the proper stage, no application for discharge was moved by these applicants before the appropriate forum, when the defence was heard on the point of framing of charge and on satisfaction, the charge was framed, hence application sans any merit, stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR. 2011/cri.appl.911­11