wp3595-10.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3595 OF 2010 Mohd. Sharukh Mukthar Ahmed Hadi .. Petitioner ( Original accused No.3) Versus State of Maharashtra (Through – Nirmal Nagar Police Station) .. Respondent Mr. Sushan Kunjuraman, for the petitioner Mr. D. P. Adsule, APP for the State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16th March, 2011. P.C.: 1. By this petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India by which, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings in CC No. 357/P/2002 in C. R.No. 83 of 2002 registered by the Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner, who is original accused no.3 in the proceedings, that since the past 9 years, no progress has been made in the case and, therefore, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3. This Court had called upon the report from the learned Trial Court and a report dated 4/3/2011 has been tendered before us. 1 wp3595-10.sxw Perusal of the report indicate that at present there 16413 cases pending on the file of the learned Magistrate, out of which 457 cases pertains to the year 2002, and 4791 cases are pertaining to the period prior to 2002. In the report, the learned Magistrate has disclosed that when the matter was on board on 6/12/2010, some of the accused were present, while others were absent and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was required to issue non-bailable warrants for securing presence of the accused. Non bailable warrant was executed in case of some of the accused while remained unexecuted in case of other accused. Learned Magistrate further states that the case would proceed against the remaining persons. Report further discloses that the case is now fixed on 12 th July, 2011 for framing charge against the accused. 4. In the light of he above fact, we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner requests that the trial be expedited. However, looking to the huge pendency of the cases before the learned Magistrate, we do not consider it proper, at this stage, to direct the the Magistrate to proceed expeditiously in this case alone. However, the Magistrate shall proceed to decide all the pending cases as expeditiously as possible. 5. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) 2