1 Appln.: 4870/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4870 OF 2010 Shri Ulhas Diwakar Joshi .... Applicant Vs. Sudhakar Shankarrao Suradkar & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Ganesh Sovani, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Sudhakar S. Suradkar for respondent no. 1 Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 24th January 2010 PC : 1. This application filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of the order dated 24th August 2010 passed by the Sessions Court on Criminal Revision Application No.247 of 2008. The order before revisional court was the order dated 17th October 2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Thane on Exhibit 71 preferred by the applicant. By the said order, the criminal application filed by the applicant herein was dismissed. Copy of the order of the trial Court has not been annexed to the application. Mr. Suradkar, respondent no.1 herein, who appears in person has tendered copy of that order. 2. Perusal of the order of the trial Court shows that Exhibit 71 filed by the applicant before the trial Court was for his discharge on the ground of discharge of the other accused Mr. Prabhakar by the Sessions Court holding that the charges against him were totally groundless. The 2 Appln.: 4870/2010 applicant herein sought parity with him. It was next contended by him that the acts allegedly committed by him were within the sphere of his official duties and therefore, he is entitled protection under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Judge noted after the process was issued against the applicant, no new material had come on record. Therefore, consider the application would amount to review of the order dated 18th March 2006 passed in the matter. He observed that such exercise cannot be undertaken as it is not permissible under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. With these observations, the application came to be dismissed. 3. The present criminal application has been filed purely on merits of the case without touching upon the grounds on which the application at Exhibit 71 came to be dismissed by the trial Court. The arguments advanced on the application have also been completely on the merits. It is not argued before me that the application at Exhibit 71 could have been heard and decided by the trial Court on its merits and hearing of that application would not have amounted to review of its earlier order. A copy of the complaint is at page 33. Perusal of the complaint shows that there are specific allegations made against the applicant. It shows that there are statements of atleast 13 persons indicating the roles played by four Police officers in the offence alleged in the complaint. The four officers include the applicant herein. It has been specifically alleged against the applicant that he had used the forged documents knowingly the same to be forged. At various places including several judicial proceedings filed in this Court and elsewhere. In the 3 Appln.: 4870/2010 circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no material against the applicant to go for trial. The prosecution must have an opportunity to lead evidence to establish the allegations made in the complaint. Hence, the application is dismissed. 4. Mr. Sovani seeks stay of operation of the order for a period of eight weeks. Since the application has been dismissed, there is nothing to be stayed. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)