6.cr appln3254-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3254 OF 2010 Dr. Shaunak Ajinkya .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Pankaj Sutar & Mr. Nikhil K. Chaudhari for the Applicant Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is facing prosecution under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. The case pertains to FIR No. 110 of 2002 at Sion Police Station. The said case is numbered as 306/PS of 2005 and it is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla, Mumbai. The applicant is seeking quashing of the said proceedings. 3. I have perused the FIR in the said case. In the said FIR, it is stated that on 03.05.2002 when the complainant / first informant was driving past Sion Hospital, the present 1 6.cr appln3254-10.doc applicant who was driving a fiat car gave a dash to his vehicle due to which, serious injury was caused to the legs of the complainant. He has clearly stated that the applicant was driving vehicle in a negligent manner and at the time dash occurred, applicant was driving the vehicle in great speed. Thus, looking to the contents of FIR, it cannot be said that it is a fit case to quash the said proceedings. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant brought to my notice a report filed by the prosecution before the trial Court. The said report is dated 10th August, 2006. In the said report, it is stated as under:- a) Complainant Mr. Khushroo Jal Tawadia has permanently shifted to Delhi. b) Panch named Shri. Alwyn D'Souza, address not proper, wrong address. c) Panch named Shri. Anurodh Mourya, chawl has been demolished and therefore could not be found. d) Witness named Shri. Akbar Ali, zuggi/ Room No. 689 could not be found. e) Witness named Shri. Deepak Kanare, address not available. On enquiry with the learned APP, it appears that the said position prevails even today. 5. The learned APP tried to submit that the witness summons have been issued to the witnesses and made returnable 2 6.cr appln3254-10.doc on 20th September, 2010 and the trial is definitely going to proceed from that day. However, when enquiry was made with learned APP, it was found that the witness summons have been issued to Alwyn D'Souza, Anurodh Mourya and Akbhar Ali on the old addresses. As far as Deepak Kanare is concerned, the summons was issued on the old address which was available at that time prior to 2002. From the report dated 10th August, 2006, it is clear that it was not possible to serve any of the witnesses on the old addresses, hence, possibility of trial starting from 20th September, 2010 appears to be extremely doubtful. 6. In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings but I am inclined to grant exemption to the applicant from personal appearance before the trial Court. It is made clear that the said exemption is granted to a limited extent. In case, the trial Court is of the opinion that the appearance of the applicant is absolutely necessary, in such case, on notice being given to the applicant, the applicant shall remain present before the Court on that date. The learned advocate for the applicant states that the advocate appearing for the applicant before the trial Court will accept notice on behalf of the applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions further states that the applicant has no objection to the trial proceeding 3 6.cr appln3254-10.doc in his absence. He further states that the identity of the witnesses will not be disputed by the applicant. 6. Application is disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4