The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for distinct charges in accordance with the law and the need for trial courts to comply with directions issued in previous revision petitions.

K. Natarajan, J.

The petitioner herein filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the charges framed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Special Case No.404 of 2015 dated 3-4-2018.

2. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court are retained for the sake of brevity.

3. The case of the petitioner/accused No.1 is that Madivala Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and other three accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the I.P.C.'), Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, [for short, 'the SC/ST (POA) Act']. After filing the chargesheet, the petitioner and other accused appeared before the Court and all the four accused filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge them from the said offences. On 25-9-2017, the trial Court rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, all the four accused filed Criminal Revision Petition No.1069 of 2017 before this Court. By the order dated 10-11-2017, this Court allowed the revision petition and directed the trial Court to re-hear the said application and to pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, by the order 23-12-2017, the trial Court considered the application of the accused under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and passed the order holding that the charges shall be framed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and also under Section 354D of the I.P.C. and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, all accused filed Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2018 before this Court. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by the order dated 16-2-2018, this Court partly allowed the revision petition and ordered to discharge accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 354D of the I.P.C., Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and also under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and specifically directed the trial Court to proceed accused No.1 and frame charges for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 354D of the I.P.C., Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and also under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. By the order dated 3-4-2018, the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 354D and 305 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and also Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The same is challenged in this revision petition under the grounds that in spite of directions issued by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2018, the trial Court included one more Section 305 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. without assigning any reason prior to framing of the charges.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 305 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and also combined composite charges are framed against the accused are erroneous. Hence, he prays to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.

6. Learned High Court supports the order of the trial Court.

7. Heard learned counsels and perused the records.

8. On perusal of the record and the order passed by this Court, the charges framed by the trial Court is illegal and erroneous. For the reasons that, this Court by the order dated 16-2-2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2018 directed the trial Court to frame charges against accused No.1 is as follows:

"The order passed by the trial Court insofar as accused No.1 is concerned is sustainable and the same is confirmed insofar as accused No.1. The trial Court is directed to frame charges for the off