1 74311 vgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 743 OF 2011 Michael Anthony Soosai ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. S.K. Raj for the Petitioner Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Hitesh Vyas for Original Complainant CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND P.D. KODE, JJ DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2011. P.C.:- The counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner intends to move formal application praying for transfer of these proceedings to some other Bench. The apprehension of the petitioner is that even the present petition filed by him will follow the same suit as in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2807 of 2010 and Criminal Application No. 246 of 2011. The fact that, in the past, two proceedings filed by the same petitioner have been disposed of by the 2 74311 Bench presided over by one of us (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.), by itself, can be no ground for praying for transfer of hearing of the matter to another Bench. 2. Notably, the abovesaid two proceedings filed by the same petitioner came to be dismissed because the petitioner failed to surrender to the jurisdiction of the Court, in spite of the fact that he was given sufficient time to do so. It is well settled position that, if the accused is seeking any relief from the Court of law, he has to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court. A fugitive-accused cannot be permitted to pursue legal proceedings, without submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court. If that is the yardstick applied to the petitioner, the request of the petitioner to recuse to hear the present petition by one of us (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.), to say the least, is bordering on contempt of Court. The request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this behalf is, therefore, rejected. 3. Since the petitioner is praying for quashing of F.I.R. registered against him, the petitioner shall have to first surrender to the jurisdiction of the Court, and cannot be permitted to pursue relief of quashing of F.I.R. and the action of proclamation as fugitive-accused. 3 74311 The petitioner shall surrender before the appropriate Court on or before 20th October, 2011. 4. We are informed that the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail on two occasions in the past, which came to be rejected in connection with the same F.I.R. For that reason, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue relief claimed by him herein, unless the petitioner surrenders to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Court on or before 20th October, 2011. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, in that case, the petitioner be given some more time to surrender, at least up to 31st October, 2011. 5. By way of indulgence, we may accede to that request, while making it clear that, if the petitioner fails to surrender on or before 31st October, 2011, and file surrender-proof in the Registry of this Court on or before 8th November, 2011, the Registry shall treat this petition as dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. 6. Subject to the above, list this matter on 11th November, 2011. 4 74311 7. We make it clear that this order will not preclude the police officials to pursue action against the petitioner in accordance with law, as may be advised, as this is not an order of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but only option to surrender to the jurisdiction before the appropriate Court. It is also clarified, at the request of his counsel, that the fact that the petitioner surrenders to the jurisdiction of the competent Court will not come in the way of the petitioner to pursue his other appropriate remedy, as may be permissible in law. Those matters will have to be decided on their own merits in accordance with law. P.D. KODE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.