1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4017 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4018/2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.794/2007. Bhujang S/o Kishanrao Lamdadhe ... Applicant. Versus Padmakar S/o Dadarao Kavale and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.B.Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr.A.S.Shelke, advocate for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Gangakhedkar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 5. Respondent No.2 deleted as per Court's order dt. 21.7.2009. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 30.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. There is delay of only eight (8) days in filing of the application seeking leave to 2 appeal and also the appeal. Both the applications and the appeal are considered together. 3. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed. 4. So far as leave to appeal is concerned, it no doubt appears prima facie that the complainant/applicant alone entered the witness box in support of the complaint and the learned Judicial Magistrate rendered the impugned order on the basis of appreciation of his evidence. The learned Magistrate observed that uncorroborated version of the complainant can not be accepted as gospel truth having regard to enmical terms between the parties. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant material, it transpires that the statement of the complainant was recorded prior to framing of the charge vide Exh.20. He narrated details of the 3 incident which occurred on 4.11.2006. The cross- examination of the complainant was adjourned. Subsequently, during his cross-examination he admitted that there took place a compromise between himself and the accused persons. He admitted further that a joint compromise purshis was filed on record vide Exh.30. He categorically admits that he did not want to proceed with the complaint and urged to dispose of the same according to law. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no compromise petition or purshis on record vide Exh.30 and, therefore, such admission of the complainant/applicant is of no much use. The cross-examination, however, shows that the complainant did not wish to proceed with the complaint nor has he examined any other witness in support of the complaint case. Thus, there was no corroboration to the testimony of the complainant. In this view of the matter, there is no special reason to grant leave to appeal. The application filed U/s 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. 4 is dismissed and so also the appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp401707