1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 167/2010 Ajay Jaywantrao Deshmukh Versus The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Chani, Distt. Akola ..................................................................................................................................................... Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ..................................................................................................................................................... Mr. G. G. Bade, counsel for applicant Mrs.K.D.Dehpande,APP for respondent-State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 29th June 2011 1. The applicant has questioned the order dated 12/02/2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 199/2009, whereby the application for discharge from the case was rejected by the impugned order dated 12/02/2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola. 2. Learned advocate for the revision applicant contended that, the learned trial Judge did not consider the vital fact of non-mention of caste of the revision applicant in the F.I.R. It is further contended that the accusations did not constitute the offence punishable under Section 294, 506(2) of Indian 2 Penal Code read with Section 3 of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act and 7 of P.C.R. 3. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that earlier there was an application filed for direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the police to investigate and report. After the investigation was done by the police and complaint came to be lodged with J.M.F.C., Patur under Section 506(2), 294 of IPC read with Section 3 of S.C. & S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act and 7 of P.C.R., it is alleged that a complaint was opposed on the ground of her caste was mentioned in the complaint filed by respondent before J.M.F.C., Patur but the caste of accused was not mentioned in the complaint as “Maratha” (belong to upper caste). 4. It appears that while considering the application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, learned trial Judge found prima facie evidence against the accused (revision applicant) that he had abused the complainant on the ground of her caste. The ruling which was relied upon by the learned advocate for the revision applicant is Manohar s/o Martandrao Kulkarni and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2005, All MR (Cri.) 2603. It is also appears to have been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing 3 the impugned order since it is specifically observed that learned Additional Sessions Judge had found caste of the complainant mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. There was no merit in the prayer for discharge. It is settled legal position that the charge has to be framed according to the prima facie case made out against the accused. The Court may find sufficient ground to proceed further against the accused by examining material collected during the investigation. The evidence will have to be considered on merits finally at the time of trial and not at the stage of framing of the charge. If the ingredients pleaded constitute the offences as alleged against accused then the trial Court has duty to frame charge and proceed further. 6. For the above reasons, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Punde