1 wp no. 1215 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1215 OF 2010 Manohar D. Ghansharamani ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mrs. V.V. Thorat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prakash Naik for respondent no. 4. Mr. S.V. Marwadi for respondent no. 5. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 07, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 23rd March, 2001 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in Criminal Case No. GB CB CID MICR No. 19 of 1996 discharging respondent nos. 2 to 5 and continuing proceedings only against original accused no. 1. The 2 wp no. 1215 of 2010 petition challenges the order on the ground that though the petitioner is the original complainant and the complaint as filed originally was a private complaint on which the order of investigation was passed under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, no notice was directed to be issued to him, while hearing the discharge application. 2. Undisputedly the petitioner had come to know about the impugned order at least on 21st March, 2007 on which date he had applied for certified copy of the order. He received the certified copy within two days thereafter i.e. on 23rd March, 2007. The present petition is filed in April, 2010. The explanation for in-action since 23rd March, 2007 given across the bar is that the petitioner was busy with other litigations involving original accused no. 1. This explanation is not stated in the petition. 3. Mr. Marwadi the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 submits that the record of the trial court would show that the petitioner was aware of the order as early as 15th August, 2001. On that date the trial court had served notice of 3 wp no. 1215 of 2010 application for discharge filed by original accused no. 1 upon the petitioner. Therefore, according to Mr. Marwadi, the delay is of 10 years in filing the present petition which delay is unexplained. 4. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it must be said that the gross unexplained delay in approaching the court will disentitle the petitioner to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court. 5. Further, perusal of the complaint filed by the petitioner shows that it is essentially against the original accused no. 1. According to the petitioner, after original accused no. 1 was inducted into partnership he sidelined the petitioner by executing false documents. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 were victims of accused no. 1. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [Judge]