SSK/ 1 appp 509.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 509 OF 2011 in CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1860 OF 2007 Smt. Sandhya D/o. Kamlakarrao Kulkarni & Ors. ....Applicants. Versus Mr. Mohan Bhalchandra Shardul & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Mateen Shaikh, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Criminal Application No. 1860 of 2007 was taken out by the applicants for quashing the process issued by learned Magistrate at Ulhasnagar in R.C.C. No. 98 of 2001. By Order dated 22nd April, 2009, a fresh notice was issued to the respondent no.1. However, report was not received from the concerned Magistrate regarding the service, and therefore, this Court by an Order dated 4th December, 2009 called for report from the the concerned Magistrate. The said application was again SSK/ 2 appp 509.11 placed for orders on 14th October, 2010. On that day, none appeared for the applicants. On the said day, learned Judge passed the order that if the applicants fail to take steps to serve respondent no.1 within two weeks from that day, the matter would stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. This order was not complied with, and therefore, Criminal Application No. 1860 of 2007 stood dismissed for non-prosecution. The applicants, thereafter, preferred Criminal Application No.114 of 2011. Same was, however, dismissed in default by Order of this Court dated 6th June, 2011, as none appeared on behalf of the applicants. The applicants, thereafter, took Criminal Application No.509 of 2011 for restoration of Criminal Application No. 114 of 2011. 3. Both Criminal Application Nos. 1860 of 2007 and 114 of 2011 stood dismissed for non-prosecution even prior to filing of an appearance on behalf of respondent no.1, and therefore, the presence of respondent no.1 for the purpose of disposal of this application is not necessary. Report of the Section Officer, Criminal Application Department, shows that respondent no.1 was served, however, he refused to accept notice of the main Criminal Application No. 1860 of 2007. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that if fresh notice is issued to respondent no.1, he will try his best to serve respondent no.1. In view of the statement and for the reasons stated in Criminal Application SSK/ 3 appp 509.11 Nos. 509 and 114 of 2011, in my opinion, Criminal Application Nos. 114 of 2011 and 1860 of 2007 deserves to be restored to file after condoning the delay. I, therefore, dispose of Criminal Application Nos. 509 and 114 of 2011 by passing the following order: 1. Criminal Application Nos. 509 & 114 of 2011 are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). 5. The Registry is directed to issue fresh notice to respondent no.1 in Criminal Application No.1860 of 2007 returnable on 21st December, 2011. (RANJIT MORE, J.)