SURENDRA SHANKARLAL BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. RULE made returnable forthwith. With consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned A. P. P. for the State. Perused the papers.

(3.) It appears that writ of the said order was also communicated to the Sessions Court, Beed. According to the applicants, they had also placed copy of the order alongwith the application before the learned IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed contending that in view of the order passed by the High Court, F. I. R to the extent of offence under the Atrocities Act has been quashed and therefore, charge could not be framed for the offence under the Atrocities Act and the case could not be proceeded before the learned Sessions Court. IT appears that the said application was opposed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, who appeared on behalf of the State. After hearing the parties, the IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed rejected the said application on the ground that copy of the criminal application No. 118 of 2005 was not placed on record, even though the writ received from this Court was clear. Having rejected the application of the applicants, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 342, 506 r. w. 34 of I. P. C. as well as under Section3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act on20.7.2006. Framing of the charges by the IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, is challenged in the present revision application.