(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 795 OF 2010 Shri Gokul Pitambar Patil, Age : 66 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Nawara Nawari, .. Petitioner Taluka & District : Dhule. (Original accused) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Shri Sudhir Dattatray Nagpurkar, Age : 67 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Plot No.8, .. Respondents Government Servant Colony, (No.2 - Original Mill Road, Dhule. complainant) ....................... Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.1. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ (2) CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 18TH JULY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner herein is the original accused, and the respondent no.2 herein is the original complainant, and the petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash and set aside the order dated 9-2-2009, passed by the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dhule, below Exhibit 57 in S.T.C.C. No. 802/2005, thereby partly allowing the application filed by the present petitioner (original accused) for calling the documents from the complainant, and the order dated 29-7-2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Criminal Revision Application No. 69/2009, thereby dismissing the revision filed by the present petitioner (original accused) against the order dated 9-2-2009 passed by the trial court. (3) 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for parties extensively, Mr. P.V. Mandlik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 (original complainant), makes a statement that the respondent no.2 shall produce the documents before the learned Trial Court, as mentioned below : (a) The documents as mentioned in application Exhibit "C" of the petition, in Clause 3-A, i.e. income tax returns from 1998 to 2004. (b) The documents as mentioned in application Exhibit "C" of the petition, in Clause 3-B i.e. as per directions of the learned Trial Court in order dated 9-2-2009, such as, extracts of the accounts in State Bank of India, Standard Chartered Bank, Bank of India and Bank of Baroda, concerning the transactions in question from 1998 to 2004. (c) The documents as mentioned in application Exhibit "C" of the petition, in Clause 3-D i.e. documents showing cheques (4) were given by the accused to the complainant, including counter slips. (d) The documents as mentioned in application Exhibit "C" of the petition, in Clause 3-E i.e. documents pertaining to the bearer cheques given by the complainant to the accused and counter slips, and (e) The documents as mentioned in application Exhibit "C" of the petition, in Clause 3-EE i.e. acknowledgment receipt bearing signature of the accused thereon. 5. The said statement made on behalf of respondent no.2 is accepted and taken on record. 6. In view of the aforesaid statement and acceptance thereof, the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 herein to produce the above referred documents before the learned Trial Court on the next date, and the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the hearing of the case since it is pending for the last 5 to 6 years. 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly, and the present (5) Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of. Needless to mention, that the interim relief stands vacated. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/kwp795