1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 152/2010 Inderchand Mansukhlal Agrawal vs. Prakash Satyanarayan Mehadia and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & R.C.Chavan, JJ DATE : 26.03.2010 Heard Mr. B.P.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Fulzele, learned APP for the respondent no.2. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs; 1) Order an enquiry into the facts as to filing of criminal appeal no. 630/2007 on 6.7.2007 by Adv. M.K.Kulkarni in the High Court. The filing section of the High Court may be directed to explain the entry no. 630/2007 being blank and other nearby entries i.e. 629/2007 and 631/2007 onwards were filled up as contended by Ram Bhalchandra Upganlawar in Annexure-VI of the Criminal application no. 1955/2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 299/2009 in the High Court. 2) On receipt of this enquiry report, the Hon'ble 2` High Court finds that Mr. Kulkarni has not filed the criminal appeal no. 630/2007 in High Court, then the Hon'ble Court may review or modified the order dated 7.10.2009 of the Hon'ble Justice Mr. A.P.Bhangale in Criminal Application no. 1955/2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 299/2009 passed on 7.10.2009 in the ends of justice. 3) The Hon'ble High Court may restore the criminal appeal no. 299/2009 for leave and criminal appeal for admission and hearing of the parties in the ends of justice. 4) In the alternative, the Hon'ble High Court may order the rehearing of Criminal appeal no. 81/2005 and criminal revision no. 1029/2009 by the Additional Session Judge, Nagpur on merits. 3. The petitioner was a complainant in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which ultimately ended in acquittal. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 71/2007 which by order dated 13.6.2007 was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file special leave to appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal. The record thereafter discloses that the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay in filing application for leave to appeal was filed which was dismissed by order dated 7.10.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Advocate Mr. M.K.Kulkarni who was engaged by the 3` petitioner to file the revision application and thereafter Criminal Appeal along with the application for condonation of delay kept him in dark and he suppressed several facts intentionally. The petitioner, therefore, seeks that the order dated 7.10.2009 passed by this learned Single Judge be recalled and the Criminal Appeal be restored to file. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner we find that no case has been made out for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy availed by the petitioner is totally misconceived and having regard to the factual situation the petitioner is not entitled to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Needless to mention that the dismissal of this petition would not come in the way of the petitioner from availing any other remedy as may be available in law for redressal of his grievances. JUDGE JUDGE patle 4`