vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.841 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.841 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.841 OF 2008 Dr.Pankaj C. Gandhi ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents Petitioner present in person Mr.P.A. Pol, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 3, 2008 JUNE 3, 2008 JUNE 3, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner has sought a direction for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.95/SS/2006 and 96/SS/2006 pending before the 21st Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra. He has also challenged the order dated 10.4.2008. Besides this, he has sought transfer of the aforesaid criminal cases from the Court of 21st Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra to any other Court. However, the Petitioner now does not press this prayer in view of the fact that the Metropolitan Magistrate has been transferred in the routine course. 2. I have heard the petitioner as well as the Respondent No.2 who are both appearing in person. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that certain observations have been made by the trial Court in its order dated 10.4.2008 which he feels would reflect : 2 : adversely on him during the course of the trial and while deciding the matter. 3. I have perused the copy of the impugned order which delineates the history of the litigation between the petitioner and the respondent as well as the conduct of the petitioner in the Court during the course of the trial. However, besides this, there are certain observations which in my opinion, were uncalled for at this stage. In this view of the matter, the following observations contained in paragraph 3 of the impugned order are deleted: "who has criminal background". "and therefore, present accused can safely be termed as habitual offender so far as offence of dishonour of cheque is concerned." 4. With these modifications in the order, the writ petition is dismissed. The trial Court has already been directed to hear the matter on a day to day basis by the order of 6.2.2008. In view of the fact that the litigation has been pending between the parties for quite a while, the trial Court shall give precedence to this matter and record the evidence on a day to day basis as already directed by this Court. : 3 : 5. Respondent No.2 has a grievance that the petitioner has not paid costs awarded to him in writ petition No.2278 of 2007. The petitioner shall pay these costs instead of driving Respondent No.2 to further litigation in order to recover the costs.