IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25 of 2008 MANTU SHARMA @ NILESH SHAKTI @ NILAM SON OF ARBIND KUMAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AND POLICE STATION-PATAHI, DISTT.-EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI -------- Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AMIT KUMAR SINGH,SON OF KAMESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DUMARIYA GHAT , POLICE STATION-DUMARIYA GHAT, DISTRICT-EAST CHAM- PARAN AT MOTIHARI ------- Opp.Parties ----------- 2 10-11-2008 Heard Mr.Dr. Amrendra Kumar No.-I, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Through this application, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 3.5.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, F.T.C.NoV, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial no.94 of 2006, whereby he has framed charges under Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C. As held in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad – Vrs.Dilip Nathumal , reported in 1989 (1) SCC 715 , if the Sessions Judge , who brings to bear his knowledge and experience in criminal trials , frames a charge after hearing the parties and also makes an order in support thereof ,the law must be allowed to take its own course. Self-restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice stares the court in the face. No such occasion has arisen in the instant case. - 2 - Even otherwise , in V.C. Shukla’s case ( AIR 1980 SC 962), Madhu Limaye –Vrs. Union of India ( 1978 Cr.L.J 165 ) the Apex Court has categorically held that the order framing charge is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and a revision against such order is maintainable . In that view of the matter, I am constrained to dismiss this application. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-