drp {1} Cri. Application No.3523/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3523 OF 2009 Narsi Kanji Thakkar APPLICANT VERSUS Gujrathi Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.G.Talhar, Advocate for the applicant ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 17th February 2011 PER COURT: 1. By this criminal application, the applicant / complainant challenges the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon dated 06.05.2009, dismissing RCC No. 217/2006, for want of prosecution, on account of failure of the complainant and his advocate to remain present in the Court, on the said date. 2. It appears that on the basis of the complaint filed by the present applicant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, by drp {2} Cri. Application No.3523/2009 order dated 21.09.2006, had issued process against the respondent-accused for an offence punishable u/s 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, it appears, though the case was listed for evidence before the charge, no evidence was led by the applicant / complainant. The accused, being harassed on account of pendency of the criminal complaint, ultimately filed an application at Exhibit-31 before the trial court on 06.05.2009 praying for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant had not led any evidence. In order to obtain reply of the complainant on this application, the trial court called out the matter for several times, but the complainant and his advocate were absent, though the case was listed for evidence before charge. The trial court, ultimately, dismissed the complaint case on default of the appearance on behalf of the applicant / complainant. 3. In the present application, it is vaguely averred by the applicant / complainant that on 06.05.2009 the complainant was absent in the Court, due to illness. It is also stated that the complainant had no knowledge that the case was listed for evidence on the said date. Apart from such bald pleading, no other particulars are stated about the illness with which the applicant was afflicted and since when was the applicant afflicted. No medical evidence has been produced in the present matter. The complainant has not placed on record the order sheet of the proceedings to show that the complainant was not responsible for drp {3} Cri. Application No.3523/2009 the delay which has occasioned in decision of the trial court. In the application filed by the accused, Exhibit-31, on 06.05.2009, the accused had pleaded for dismissal of the complaint case on the ground that the complainant had not led any evidence from 18.10.2006, though the case had been fixed for evidence before charge. 4. We have heard Mr.Talhar, learned counsel for the applicant and we do not see any perversity in the reasoning of the trial court to justify any interference in this application, by granting leave to file appeal. Consequently, this application, which is devoid of any merit, is summarily dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/criapln3523-09