skt/- 1 1..wp.2147.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2147 OF 2009 Madhav G. Samdani ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents ...... Mr.Madhav G. Samdani, Petitioner-present-in-person. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP for respondent no.1-State; Mr.M.G.Shukla i/by Girish Kulkarni for respondent no. 2. ...... CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 14th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1 In the Criminal Writ Petition No.2584 of 2006, the petitioner was accused No.5 in Criminal Case No. 435/SW/2005 pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court at Borivali. The said accused and 5 others were charged under Section 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The proclamation dated 14th December 2006 was issued against accused no.5 and by the said petition, she had sought to quash the proclamation. By the order dated 14th December 2006, in the petition, the proclamation skt/- 2 1..wp.2147.09.sxw was stayed for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to come back to India and to appear before the Magistrate. This Court had also directed the petitioner to give bank guarantee in sum of Rs.12 lacs to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and to keep the bank guarantee alive till conclusion of the trial. The time was given on the basis of a prayer made by the present respondent no.2, who is the brother of accused no.5, i.e. the petitioner in that petition. 2 As the said petitioner did not appear within the stipulated period nor she furnished the bank guarantee as per the order of the High Court, an application was moved by the present petitioner, who was respondent no.2 in earlier petition and who is the complainant, seeking directions against the present respondent no.2 to comply with the order of the High Court. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 15th June 2006 directing respondent no.2 to keep accused no.5 present before the Court. That order was challenged by respondent no.2 in Criminal Revision Application No. skt/- 3 1..wp.2147.09.sxw 28/2009. The learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, holding that order of the High Court was against accused no.5 and not against her brother. Being aggrieved by this, the original complainant has filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 3 The above referred two orders passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge are based on interpretation of the order passed by this Court (Coram : Smt.Ranjana P.Desai,J.). Therefore, this petition was placed before Hon'ble Smt.Justice Desai for clarification of the earlier order and Her Ladyship has passed the classificatory order dated 24th June 2010. The classificatory order supports the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge. In view of this clarification, nothing remains in the present petition. The petitioner, who is the complainant, can take action against accused no.5 : Ms.Parul Daliya. skt/- 4 1..wp.2147.09.sxw as per the order dated 14th December 2006 passed by this Court as clarified by the order dated 24th June 2010 in the present petition. 4 The petition stands disposed of accordingly. [ J.H. BHATIA, J.]