VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 95 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 244 OF 2007 Nikhil N. Sayta Applicant (Orig. Complainant) Vs. 1) The State of Maharashtra ) Respondents ) 2) Vinod Hingorani ) (Orig. Accused No.4 ) Smt. V. M. Amlani, for the applicant Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr.Manish Bhatia i/b A. S. Khan & Associates for respondent Nos.2. CORAM : Smt. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : JUNE 18, 2008. PC :- . Heard the learned advocate for the applicant/original complainant, learned APP for respondent State and the learned advocate for respondent No.2/original accused No.4. 2. The applicant had preferred application for quashing of process being Criminal Application Nol. 244 of 2007. The process had been issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said matter notice was issued to the original complainant. On 16th January 2008 none appeared for - 2 - the respondent/ original complainant, when the matter was called. Hence, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and after going through the record, application came to be allowed and the order of issue of process came to be quashed. The applicant has preferred this application for setting aside the said exparte order and for restoration of Criminal Application No. 244 of 2007. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that on 16-1-2008 when the advocate for the present applicant checked the High Court Board on the Internet, she could not locate the said matter against her name as her name was wrongly spelled on the Board. This fact was revealed on 18-1-2008 only, when another Criminal Application No. 243 of 2007 which was filed against this applicant by the respondent No.2 herein and another applicant, appeared on the board and the advocate for the applicant learnt from the advocate for respondent No.2 herein that Criminal Application No. 244 of 2007 had appeared on Board on 16-1-2008 and was heard in her absence. The name of the learned advocate was indeed wrongly spelled on board. There is no dispute regarding this fact. 4. From the above facts, it is seen that there - 3 - was no fault on the part of the learned advocate for the applicant as her name had been wrongly shown on the board hence, she did know that the matter was on board, and therefore, she could not remain present in the court when the matter was called out. In view of the above facts, in my opinion, in the interest of justice, the said exparte order deserves to be set aside and it would be necessary to hear the matter on merits. Hence, the impugned order dated 16th January 2008 is set aside and the matter i.e. Criminal Application No. 244 of 2007 is restored to file. Criminal application is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- [Smt. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]