( 1 ) Cri.wp404-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 404 OF 2010 Venkatrao Dattatraya Mali PETITIONER VERSUS Mahadeo Madhukarrao Badade RESPONDENT .... Mr. Hanmant V. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 14th December, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petition is filed against apprehended action for recovery of compensation amount awarded in S.T.C.C. No. 4808/2003. The son of the petitioner was original accused and came to be convicted to undergo simple imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay compensation of Rs. three (3) lacs. The petitioner's son preferred an appeal. The Sessions Court suspended the substantive sentence by directing release of the petitioner's son on furnishing of bail bonds in tune of Rs. ( 2 ) Cri.wp404-10 15,000/- with a surety bond in the like sum and on further condition that he shall furnish Bank Guarantee or the solvent surety for payment of Rs. three (3) lacs being the compensation. The petitioner accepted to remain as surety for the son and undertook to pay the compensation amount as a surety if his son would not pay the same. 3. What appears from the record is that the appeal preferred by the petitioner's son came to be dismissed and, therefore, the original complainant has filed application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recovery of the compensation amount from the present petitioner. It is explicit that the application is yet to be decided on merits. Needless to say, the petitioner will be at liberty to show cause and explain his stance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in order to claim immunity from the liability to pay such amount. He may be exempted from the liability if his case is found to be worthy of consideration or he may be mulcted with the liability if there is no merit in his case. Still, however, mere filing of such execution application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by itself does not give rise to any illegality as such, or perversity as such, which warrants interference in the ( 3 ) Cri.wp404-10 exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No case is made out. The petition is premature and as such, is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criwp404-10