1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2008. Datta s/o Narayanrao Rokde, age 27 years, occu. Agri., r/o Hatnur, Tal. Selu, Dist. Parbhani. ... APPLICANT. ( Ori. complainant) Versus 1. Nanabhau Achutrao Ladane and others. ... RESPONDENTS. (R.Nos.1 to 3 ori. Accused, R.No.4 ori. Complainant) ... Shri B.A. Shinde, Advocate for applicant. Shri S.S. Rathi, Advocate for R.Nos.1 to 3. Shri N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for R.No.4 State. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. 9th August, 2010. PER COURT: 1. We heard learned Counsel Mr. Shinde, who appears for the applicant (original complainant), learned Counsel Mr. Rathi for Respondents No.1 to 3 (original accused) and Mr. Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.4. 2 2. The respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Nanabhau Achutrao Ladane, Sunil Achutrao Ladane and Triweni w/o Achutrao Ladane respectively, were charged and tried for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 65/2007. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the material brought on record, acquitted the respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Nanabhau Achutrao Ladane, Sunil Achutrao Ladane and Triweni w/o Achutrao Ladane, respectively of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. They are also acquitted of the alternative charge levelled against them under Section 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. This order of acquittal is recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 22nd November, 2007. 3. The learned Counsel Mr. Shinde appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant in this Criminal Revision Application is original complainant. He filed the present Criminal Revision Application on 21st January, 2008 in this Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-2, Parbhani in 3 Sessions Trial No.65/2007. This challenge was raised under Section 401 r/w 482 of Cr.P.C. This revision application was placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court. After couple of adjournments, the learned Single Judge of this Court heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and issued Rule. This order was passed on 21st August, 2009. It was submitted on behalf of the State that Criminal Appeal No.265/2008 (appeal against acquittal) arising out of Sessions Trial No.65/2007 was filed and admitted by the learned Division Bench of this Court on 26th June, 2008. This has been noticed by the learned Single Judge and Rule was issued on 21st August, 2009. 4. The applicant has approached this Court by filing present revision application with following prayers: “A) The record and proceedings of the present case may kindly be called for; B) To quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.65/2007, thereby acquitting 4 the Respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 from the charge under section 498(A), 304(B), 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside and remand the matter back for fresh trial in accordance with the law and for that purpose issue necessary orders; C) By issuing appropriate directions your Lordship may kindly be directed to the Respondent No.4 to prefer the Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.65/2007 and for that purpose issue necessary orders; D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Criminal Revision Application, the Respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to sent proposal to Law and Judiciary for filing the Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.65/2007 and for that purpose issue necessary orders; E) Pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. Prayer Clause (A) has satisfied since the Record & Proceedings has been called by this Court (learned Division Bench) in Criminal Appeal No.265 of 2008 5 filed by the State against order of acquittal. We have considered prayer clauses (B) and (C). Indisputably, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 265/2008 under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. This appeal was before the learned Division Bench of this Court on 26th June, 2008. On that day, after hearing the learned A.P.P., this appeal has been admitted, record has been called for and action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. has been directed. In our view, now there is no point in keeping this revision application pending till hearing and disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2008 (against acquittal) filed on behalf of the State. This revision application, on the date of filing of the appeal against acquittal by the State, becomes redundant so far as direction to respondent No.4 State to file Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2007 passed by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No.65/2007 is concerned. We are, therefore, inclined to dispose of this criminal revision application however, by granting liberty in favour of the applicant – original complainant to file criminal application seeking permission to assist the learned A.P.P. in view of section 302 of Cr.P.C. While hearing Criminal 6 Appeal No.265 of 2008. 6. Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file appropriate criminal application seeking permission to assist the prosecution under Section 302 of Cr.P.C., if the applicant / complainant desires to do so. We make it clear that we have not expressed opinion on merits of Criminal Appeal No.265/2008. The said appeal shall be heard on its own merits on the adjourned date. Rule discharged. No costs. [ S.S. SHINDE ] [ S.B. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE JUDGE Kadam/*