KBP 1 cr.wp.1309-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1309 OF 2011 Aslam Mohammed Sahib ..Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra ..Respondent -- Mr.Sushan Kunjuraman, for petitioner. Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for respondent State. -- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 23 rd NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C.: By this petition, it is prayed that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner bearing R.C.C.No.43 of 1990 in Naupada Police Station C.R.No.586/1989, before the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Naupada Court, Thane, be quashed and set aside on the ground that there has been inordinate delay of almost 22 KBP 2 cr.wp.1309-11.odt years in completing the trial of the said case. According to the petitioner, the trial has been delayed for the reasons not attributable to the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner is accused no.4 in the said case. 2] We have perused reply affidavit filed by Mr.Jayaram Dattaram More, Police Inspector, Naupada Police Station, Thane. It is noticed that the petitioner has been named as accused no.4 along with other accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. All the accused were absconding between 1994 to 2000, as a result of which, arrest warrants remained unexecuted. From 2001 till 2005, except accused no.1, all other accused including the accused before this Court were absconding for which, non bailable warrants and look out notices were issued against them as well as sureties. It is stated by the respondent that from 2001 onwards, accused nos.1 and 4 were present before the Court, but all other accused were absconding. As a result, the trial could not proceed till now. It may appear that from 2008 onwards, the petitioner before this Court i.e. accused no.4 may not be personally responsible for the KBP 3 cr.wp.1309-11.odt delay in progress of the trial, but, considering the fact that other accused are absconding, neither the Court nor the prosecution can be blamed. 3] In the circumstances, the question of quashing of complaint at the instance of the petitioner – accused no.4, on the ground of inordinate delay in completion of the trial, in the fact situation of the present case, does not arise. Hence, that relief will have to be turned down. 4] At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner and accused no.1 are present before the trial Court, it would be open to the trial Court to separate their trial from the trial of absconding accused and proceed against them in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to make such request to the trial Court which, we hope and trust, will be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. In the event the trial Court accepts the request so made by the petitioner or any other accused person before him, may have to proceed with the trial expeditiously keeping in mind that the offences against the accused were registered as KBP 4 cr.wp.1309-11.odt back as on 15 th November, 1989. 5] Petition is disposed of in the above terms. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.]