VIKRANT RAJKUMAR GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. By this revision application, the applicant challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 01/11/2014, thereby framing of charge against the applicant under Section 304-B, 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and prays for interim order in nature of stay to the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 31/2010.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that if the interim order is not passed, the purpose of filing the present application by the applicant would be frustrated. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the F.I.R., the Order-Sheet/Roznama, of which a copy is placed on record as Annexure C, and the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge, dated 01/11/2014. It was an attempt of the learned Counsel for the applicant to submit that the material itself is insufficient for the alleged offences against the applicant under Section 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel then submits that no opportunity was granted of hearing either to the applicant-accused or the Counsel representing the applicant. He submits that the applicant was enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the applicant on 01/11/2014 attended the Court with a prayer for cancellation of 'non-bailable warrant' issued against him, and to the shock and surprise of the applicant, on the very day, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge without offering any opportunity of hearing to the applicant-accused, who was present in the Court. He submits that the course adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the judicial pronouncement of this Court in the matter of Ambadas Kashirao Kharad vs. State of Maharashtra,2007 1 BCR(Cri.) 881.

(3.) I have gone through the material placed on record as well as the judgment on which the learned Counsel for the applicant placed heavy reliance.