1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 958 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 958 OF 2005 Pramod Anand Naralkar ..Applicant versus Sahadu Baburao Repale & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. G. S. Kulkarni i/b. Mr. S. R. Waghmare for Applicant. Mr. S. H. Shool for Respondent No. 1. Mr. D. R. More - APP for State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : MAY 07, 2010. P.C. : 1. Criminal Writ Petition No. 958 of 2005 is filed for quashing the proceedings pending before the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 10 of 2004. 2. Criminal Application No. 96 of 2010 is filed for taking action against the respondent no.1 for having committed contempt of this Court. 2 3. Criminal Application No. 97 of 2010 is filed praying for a declaration that the Special Case No. 10 of 2004 is dismissed as withdrawn in view of the affidavit dated 11th January 2007 filed before this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 958 of 2005. 4. The case arises out of a peculiar facts. The respondents herein had filed a complaint against the petitioners who are the senior officers of the Department of Registration and the office bearers of certain Co-operative Societies. It was the allegation of the complainant that though the amount towards the stamp duty and registration fee was collected by the accused, the same was not deposited in the treasury. The petitioners had therefore approached this court by Criminal Writ Petition No. 958 of 2005 challenging the Order passed by the learned Special Judge, Pune dated 21st March 2005 directing an investigation to be conducted under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code by CBI. This Court vide order dated 7th April 2005 granted interim relief in the matter. The same was confirmed by this Court vide Order dated 27th April 2005. Thereafter a Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents came to be dismissed on 9th January 2006. Review Petition filed was also dismissed on 10th October 2006. 5. It appears that in the meantime the respondents filed a Misc. Application before this Court on an Affidavit stating therein that the accused 3 had satisfied the entire stamp duty on each transaction and therefore there was no question in pursuing the said complaint. It has been categorically stated in the said application, which is on affidavit annexed at Annexure ‘D’ to the Criminal Application No. 96 of 2010. However, it appears that in the meantime the writ petition came to be dismissed in default. An application for restoration of the said writ petition being Criminal Application No. 102 of 2007 was filed. This Court vide order dated 8th August 2007 allowed the application and restored the petition. This Court had specifically observed in the said order that since the respondents have filed an affidavit that they do not wish to pursue the private complaint, liberty was granted to the applicant to apply for withdrawal of the petition after the complaint was withdrawn by the complainants. It further appears that in the meantime the respondents had also filed applications for withdrawal of the complaint before the learned Special Judge, 6. However it appears that the respondent no. 1 herein filed an application before the learned Special Judge on 15th September, 2009 stating therein that since the writ petition was dismissed, the complaint should be proceeded further. A similar application came to be filed on 12th October 2009. The learned Special Judge vide communication dated 30th October 2009 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI requested the CBI to conduct the further enquiry in the matter. The respondent no.1 thereafter 4 further filed application on 30th January 2010 thereby requesting the police authorities to investigate the matter since the CBI was not investigating it properly. 7. From the entire conduct of the respondent no. 1, it appears that he is trying to play hide and seek with this Court and the Court of Special Judge, Pune. After the Rule was granted he along with others not only applied to the learned Special Judge for withdrawal of the complaint, he has also filed an affidavit before this Court stating therein that he does not wish to prosecute with the complaint. 8. The Court has taken on record the affidavit vide Order dated 8th August 2007. In this background the conduct of the respondent no. 1 in filing further applications after the petition came to be dismissed in default for proceeding with the complaint, in my view, is an attempt to over reach the Orders of the Court. It further appears that the respondent no. 1 has also suppressed the earlier applications filed by him and the affidavit filed by him before this Court, when he made subsequent applications before the learned Special Judge. 9. Be that as it may. The respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit before this Court and so also the other respondents have filed an affidavit before 5 this Court stating therein that they do not wish to proceed with the complaint, in as much as their grievance stands satisfied. 10. Since the respondent no. 1 had not appeared before this Court though duly served, a bailable warrant was issued to him. When the matter was listed yesterday at the request of counsel of the respondent no.1, the matter was kept today so as to ensure his presence. Today the respondent no.1 is personally present in the court and has filed an affidavit on record tendering unconditional apology. Respondent No.1 has specifically recorded making the applications dated 15th September 2009, 12th October 2009 and 13th January 2010 before the learned Special Judge. In that view of the matter, I find that no purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 11. The proceedings pending before the learned Special Judge vide Special Case No. 10 of 2004 are quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in Criminal Writ Petition No. 958 of 2005. Criminal Application No. 97 of 2010 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 12. In so far as Criminal Application No. 96 of 2010 is concerned though this Court is prima facie of the view that the conduct of the respondent no. 1 6 amounts to a contempt of this Court, since the respondent no.1 is personally present and has tendered his unconditional apology and taking into consideration that he is 72 years old, I do not propose to take any action against him in the matter. As such Criminal Application No. 96 of 2010 stands disposed of. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)