17. cr wp 1824-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1824 OF 2010 Lagamanna Satu Koli & Ors .. Petitioners Vs Maruti Appu Koli & Anr. .. Respondent Mr. Kiran C. Shirguppe for the Petitioners Mr. P.M. Arjunwadekar for Respondent No. 1 Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 12th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners-original accused, learned advocate for respondent no.1-original complainant and learned APP for the State. 2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. 3. Respondent no. 1 filed a private complaint against the present petitioners under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The said complaint is numbered as Summary Criminal Case No. 233 of 2001 and it is pending before the learned JMFC, Kurudnwad. 4. The petitioner filed an application [Exh. 112/A] before the learned Magistrate for quashing the charge framed by 1 17. cr wp 1824-10.doc the Court against them. The case of the petitioners is that there was no hearing before the charge. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate without taking any evidence, has framed the charge against them. The learned Magistrate by order dated 30th March 2010 rejected the said application holding that there is no obligation on the part of the Magistrate to record evidence before the charge. 5. Learned advocate for respondent no. 1 submitted that the Magistrate can frame charge even without any evidence having been taken under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr reported in (2009) 14 SCC 115 held that 'a view that the Magistrate can frame a charge without any evidence having been taken under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. is not a correct view'. Thus, in view of the observation of the Supreme Court in Ajoy Kumar Ghose (Supra), the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable, hence it is quashed. 6. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 7. As far as prayer for quashing of proceedings is concerned, liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer separate petition for aforesaid prayer. 2 17. cr wp 1824-10.doc [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3