1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.992 OF 2010 Anil Rangnath Kedar & Ors. ..... Petitioners. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mr. S.G. Rajput for Petitioners. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 2. By this Petition which is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are challenging the order of framing charge dated 3/11/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that from the material which is on record, no offence punishable under section 395 is made out and, as such, the said charge could not have been framed by 2 the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the said incident and it is alleged by the complainant that after he closed his shop in the evening, the present accused along with others demolished his shop and committed theft of Rs 20,000/- which was lying in one of the drawers of table kept in that shop. It is submitted that for the purpose of offence under section 395, there has to be an allegation that the complainant and other witnesses were threatened and that the accused were carrying lethal weapons. It is submitted that no such allegation is made in the complaint and there are no eye witnesses to the said fact. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration this fact. It is submitted that, at the highest, charge under sections 379, 380 could have been framed. It is submitted that if the charge under section 395 is not framed, offence would be triable by the Magistrate and it would not be the sessions triable case. 4. In my view, while exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it would not be appropriate to go through the statements of witnesses, particularly because, Petitioners, in my view, have alternative remedy of filing an application before the learned Sessions Court for deleting the charge which is already framed under section 395. If such an application is preferred, the Sessions Court shall consider the said application under section 216 of the Cr.P.C and pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ 3 Petition, therefore, cannot be entertained and Liberty is granted to the Petitioners to make an application in the Sessions Court under section 216 of the Cr.P.C. for deletion of charge under section 395. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to file an application for alteration of charge. The Sessions Court, if such an application is preferred, consider it on merits and in accordance with law. (V.M. KANADE, J.)