1 wp2390 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITOIN NO. 2390 OF 2010 Anand Rajeshwar Deshmukh ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. S.R. Ganbawale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2010 P.C. 1) By this petition, the petitioner who is accused in Criminal case bearing No. 4420 of 1992 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri for the offences punishable under Section 379, 338, 427 of Indian Penal and 119 and 199 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeks to quash of the said proceedings. The petition is opposed by the State. 2) On 30th March, 1992 an accident took place involving Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Transport ("PCMT" for short) Bus and Maruti 2 wp2390 of 2010 car driven by the petitioner by way of head-on collision. The police registered the crime and on completion of investigation, arrested the petitioner on 23rd August, 1992. He has since been released on bail. The proceedings have been pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri without any progress. Petitioner claims that the pendency of the proceedings for the last 18 years without any progress has caused much harassment to him. He also claims that the accident occurred not on account of any negligence on his part but on account of the negligence on the part of driver of PCMT bus. 3) Mr. Ganbawale, the counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the spot panchanama as well as sketch of spot of the incident. Perusal of the spot panchanama as well as the sketch of spot of the accident indicates that in fact PCMT bus was on the correct side of the road, whereas petitioner's car was not. The panchanama and sketch refer to break marks of the bus to the distance of 21 ft. This would show that at the time of accident, driver of PCMT bus had tried to avert the accident by applying breaks sufficiently in time. However, unfortunately, he could not avert the accident. The contents of the complaint and record, prima- 3 wp2390 of 2010 facie, indicates negligence of the petitioner. Hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed. 4) Besides, there is also gross delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the present proceedings. The complaint was been filed in the year 1992. The present application is filed 18 years thereafter. The Petitioner claims that until he made application to the passport authorities, for renewal of his passport, he was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings. It cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware of the pendency of the proceedings. He may have at the most forgotten the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him. Hence, petition is dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)