1 CRWP 1030/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1030 OF 2009 Shivaji s/o Sukhdeo Badhe, Age 56 years, Occu. Retired, R/o. Mhada Colony, R-26, House No.141, N-9, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER (Ori.Complainant) VERSUS Sunil s/o Jagannathrao Jape, AGe Major, Occu. Service, R/o. Back Side of MSEB, Station, Ghodegaon Road, Newasa, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmadnagar. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.Accused) ... Mr.M.K.Goyanka, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. V.S.Bedre, Adv., for respondent (sole). ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:3-3-2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. In a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, after the complainant filing affidavit in examination in chief, the accused/respondent did not present himself on the adjourned date. The complainant 2 CRWP 1030/2009 remained in the Court all throughout. Consequently, the matter was adjourned from 16.12.2008 to 23.12.2008. Thereafter, the absence of the respondent continued. It was followed by recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 7.10.2009. The respondent/accused denied the questionnaire based on the evidence put to him. Thereafter, he moved application seeking to cross examine the witness vide Exh.43 dt.15.10.2009. Learned Judge, in spite of there being statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., observed, "considering the matter of the application and say, no cross order has been set aside, subject to cross examination today". It was, thus, peremptory on the part of the accused/respondent to have adhered the schedule. However, he moved another application to accommodate him as he had engaged new Advocate. This application was allowed subject to costs of Rs.500/- on 15.10.2009. 2. Learned Counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits, so far as the accused/respondent has changed five Counsel and he is more keen in protracting the matter as he does not desire to settle the dispute though such application was moved in the past in Sept.,2009 ( Exh.38). 3. Mr.Bedre, Counsel, representing accused/respondent submits, the laxity and the 3 CRWP 1030/2009 mistake on the part of the accused/respondent is writ large, however, if a time schedule is given to dispose of the matter within one month, the controversy can be resolved. 4. The approach of respondent/accused is, apparently, to protract the proceedings and to avoid rigour arising out of such prosecution. He was substantially accommodated in past. He even knew that statement in terms of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded still when the Court has accommodated him on 15.10.2009, he should have coined the same in proper perspective, however, he has again got the matter adjourned. This approach of the accused/respondent does not befit the situation to further entertain his protraction and allow the proceedings to linger. 5. In the situation, both the orders ( Exhs. 43 and 44) recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Aurangabad are set aside. The matter to proceed after the stage of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Petition allowed. Stay to the proceedings vacated. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/1030-09crwp