IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 833 OF 2010 Ravi @ Ravindra M. Dhamankar and Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. Arvind Bhaskar Gogate and Anr. ... Respondents. Mrs.Neha P. Bhide for the applicants. Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 6th June 2011. P.C. : This Court had issued notice on 8th March 2010. In spite of notice duly served, none appeared for respondent No.1. As such, this Court vide order dated 17th January 2011 issued fresh notice indicating therein that the criminal application would be decided finally at the stage of admission itself. In spite of said notice being served, none appears for respondent No.1. 2. Hence, rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of parties. 4. Criminal complaint for the offence punishable under sections 405, 418, 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. came to be filed by respondent No.1 against the present applicant. The allegation of the complainant was that he was serving with accused No.1. The present applicant, who was one of the directors of accused No.1, was also impleaded as one of the accused. The basic contention of the complainant was that the complainant was induced to accept Voluntary Retirement Scheme and, accordingly, he was given nine cheques. However, it is further case of the complainant that subsequently the accused sought return of the cheques with assurance that fresh cheques would be given to him. It is the case of the complainant that the accused did not comply with the said assurance and, as such, he was required to filed complaint. In the said Criminal Case No.90/1998, the accused claimed for discharge. However, their prayer was rejected by the learned trial Judge vide his order dated 8th November, 2005 directing framing of charge under section 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Karjat, revision was filed by the present applicant before learned Sessions Judge, Alibag. However, the said revision came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order present application is filed. 7. The reason given by the applicants is that their advocate appearing in the Sessions Court had mistakenly heard some other date of the proceeding and, as such, on the date on which revision application was dismissed, their advocate could not appear. 8. I find substance in the reason given by the applicant. Even otherwise, instead of dismissing the litigation on hyper technical ground it would be in the interest of justice that the lis between the parties be decided on merits. 9. In this view of the matter, rule is made absolute in term of prayer clause (a). (B.R.GAVAI, J.)