(1.) Heard Ms. Neeta Jog, advocate for the applicants/accused, Shri R.M. Patwardhan, advocate for the non-applicant/complainant and Shri A.K. Bangadkar, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.
(2.) The accused are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused filed application praying that they be discharged from the charge of commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) Ms. Neeta Jog, learned advocate for the accused has submitted that even if the averments of complaint/F.I.R. are considered to be true, they do not make out prima facie case for prosecution of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the complainant has come out with the false case and if the prosecution of the accused continues on the basis of the false complaint made by the complainant, it will cause irreparable injury to the accused and will adversely affect their social status. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has found that the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has rightly discharged the accused from being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in directing the learned Magistrate to frame charge against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 325, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to direct the learned Magistrate to frame charge against the accused. To support this submission, learned advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (in Cr. A. No. 63 of 1970) and Ram Prasad Poddar and others (in Cr. A. No. 64 of 1970) Vs. The State of Maharashtra (in both Appeals) reported in 1972 CRI.L.J. 329.