1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2631 OF 2009 Satnamsingh Shrichand Arora .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri Vivek Pandey for the Petitioner. Shri K.V. Saste, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 6, 2009 P.C: Charges have been framed against the petitioner. He had also filed an application for discharge. When his discharge application was rejected, he filed a criminal revision application in this Court which was decided by a learned single Judge on 14-9-2009. As a matter of fact, what was considered by the learned single Judge was whether charge could be framed or not. The learned Judge held thus: "4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after rejecting the discharge application on 6/4/2009 has framed the charge against the accused on the same day. The Revision Application is preferred after the charge was framed. 2 5. Such Revision Application after framing of charge is not maintainable. ......" We do not think that after this order was passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in revision, framing of charge by this Court was possible even under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Manifestly the petitioner has failed to get set aside the charges framed against him even in the High Court. This is only an abuse of process of law as the petitioner has tried to come to this Court consecutively only to stall the trial against him. It may also be pointed out that even today the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has not been able to show that the charges framed against the petitioner are not based on evidence collected by the police during the investigation. He has not annexed to this petition even a single statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. Obviously, this is a process to stall the proceedings. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)