1/8 16-wp-527-26(j).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 527 OF 2026 Laxmi Vijay Lilhare @ Hasina Khan, Age : 47 years, Occupation: Business R/o Arni Road, Kade Layout, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal ...Petitioner // VERSUS // The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Awadhutwadi, Yavatmal, Taluka and Dist. Yavatmal ... Respondent Shri Parvez W. Mirza Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.R.Lule, APP for the respondent no.1/State. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the respective parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the framing of the charge by the learned trial Court dated 28.01.2026 vide Exhibit 238 passed by the learned Special Judge, Yavatmal in Special Case No. 93 of 2023, on the ground that the petitioner was not heard. Sknair 2026:BHC-NAG:12148 2/8 16-wp-527-26(j).odt 3. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the order dated 28.01.2026 framing the charge specifically records that the charge was read over and explained to the petitioner in vernacular, however, the petitioner was not heard before framing of the charge. He further submits that the petitioner namely Laxmi Lilhare, did not file any application for discharge and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner was heard at the time of the discharge application and as such the grant of opportunity of hearing was already granted to the petitioner. In the absence of any such discharge application being heard by the petitioner, the petitioner is now charged with an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act. Shri Mirza, learned counsel therefore submits that the grant of opportunity of hearing before framing of the charge is one of the necessity principle of a fair trial to the accused. The learned trial Court has mechanically observed that all the accused persons were present, that the charge was read over and explained to them in vernacular and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However, accused nos. 4 to 7 had filed their discharge application and they were heard on merits and one of the accused i.e. Sknair 3/8 16-wp-527-26(j).odt accused no. 8 also filed an application for alteration of charge and that was also heard on the alteration of the charge. However, the petitioner did not file either any application of discharge or alteration of the charge and hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was heard before framing of the charge. 4. Shri Mirza, learned counsel further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ambadas Kashirao Kharad and others reported in 2007(1) Mh. L.J (Cri), in the case of Wasumati Ashok Thakre and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Revision no. 135 of 2010 and in the case of Shri Hitesh Raithatha and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 3445, wherein this Court was pleased to observe that hearing of the accused before framing of the charge is one of the basic necessity, to conduct the trial in fair and transparent manner. The quoting of provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C”) it was held that grant of opportunity of hearing is one of the basic principle for the fair trial. It is further submitted that in the absence of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the charge is framed, impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside by directing the trial Court to Sknair 4/8 16-wp-527-26(j).odt frame the charge only after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. As against this Shri Lule, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the present petition on the ground that the order dated 28.01.2026 framing the charge itself shows that the charge was framed after hearing of the petitioner. The perusal of the order would show that the charge was read over and explained to the accused and accused denied the same and claimed to be tried and hence, thereafter the charge was framed on 28.01.2026. The aforesaid procedure is applied with the condition of hearing of the petitioner before framing of the charge, therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner was not heard before framing of the charge. There were several application for discharge was filed by other accused nos. 4 to 7 and one of the application was filed for alteration of charge by the accused no.8. The trial Court has heard all the accused persons extensively before framing of the charge. The application for discharge was filed by the accused nos. 4 to 7, came to be rejected vide order dated 28.01.2026 and the application for alteration of charge filed by the accused no.8 also came to be allowed on 25.02.2026. The entire evidence was scrutinized by the trial Court and then the charge Sknair 5/8 16-wp-527-26(j).odt came to be framed against each of the accused. The accused was then read over and explained to the accused which was likely to be framed and after she denied and claimed to be tried, that the charge was finally framed on 28.01.2026. The impugned order is just and proper and writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. 6. I have gone through the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 as well as the applications filed by accused persons nos. 4 to 7 which was registered i.e. Exhibits 215, 214, 110 and 153 and the application for alteration of charge i.e. Exhibit 252. The perusal of the record shows that accused no.4 Vijay Lilhare, accused no.5 Kushal Lilhare, accused no.6 Vishal Lilhare and accused no.7 Sharif Khan have filed the application for discharge, whereas accused no. 8 Shaikh Farma Shaikh Akhtar filed the application for alteration of charge from Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to Indian Arms Act. All the application for discharge as well as alteration of charge were decided by the learned Special Judge. The application below Exhibit 153, 110, 214 and 215 were decided on the same i.e 28.01.2026, whereas the application for alteration of charge was decided on 25.02.2026. The record does not show that the petitioner Laxmi Lilhare had filed any application for discharge. The learned Sknair 6/8 16-wp-527-26(j).odt Additional Public Prosecutor was directed from the concerned Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court to confirm whether any application was filed by the petitioner for discharge. Upon instructions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that no such application came to be filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court. 7. The Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ambadas Kashirao Kharad and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra) was pleased to observe as under: 9. What I find in the present case is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directly proceeded to frame charge against the applicants without complying with the provisions of Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This practice ex facie contrary to Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such cannot be countenanced. 8. The said order was subsequently followed by another Single Judge Wasumati Ashok Thakre and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2010 dated 12.08.2010. Although, the Section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for separate hearing before framing of the charge, however, Section 227 of Cr.P.C specifically provides for consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after submission of the accused and Sknair 7/8 16-wp-527-26(j).odt the prosecution are heard which is to be followed even while exercising powers under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. 9. In the absence of any application for discharge being filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner was not even heard before framing of charge on 28.01.2026. Thus, taking into consideration ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Ambadas Kashirao Kharad and others Vs. state of Maharashtra (supra), I am inclined to exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and pass the following order. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order i.e. framing of charge dated 28.01.2026 against the petitioner Laxmi Vijay Lilhare is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court. iv. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 17.09.2026. v. The learned trial Court shall after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, frame the charge against him. The failure on the part of the petitioner to remain present before the learned trial Court on Sknair 8/8 16-wp-527-26(j).odt the next date of hearing i.e. 17.09.2026, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, for securing and ensuring the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] Sknair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2026 14:31:17