1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Criminal Application No. 417 of 2009 (For Condonation of Delay) With Criminal Application No. 418 of 2009 (For Restoration) In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2009 Shivanand Yashwantappa Devaramani .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Naveen Chomal for applicant. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ. December 01, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Chomal, the learned counsel for the applicant, who had filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2009 and it was dismissed for non prosecution on 6/8/2009. The petitioner has, therefore, filed Criminal Application No. 418 of 2009 for restoration of the said writ petition, but belatedly and hence this application for condonation of delay. 2 2. As per the office note, the delay caused is of 76 days for applying for restoration. 3. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2009 the main prayer was to quash Criminal Complaint No. 116/PW/05 filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai and arising out of C.R. No. 67 of 2002 registered with the E.O.W. Branch of Mumbai Police. 4. Admittedly, by now, a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court and the petitioner, if so chooses, has the remedy to apply for discharge on the basis of the very same material which was placed along with Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2009. 5. Even otherwise, the explanation of delay furnished in this application states that when the Criminal Writ Petition No.1134 of 2009 was on board on 4/8/2009, the learned Advocate for the petitioner count not attend the court owing to his ill-health and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 6/8/2009. On the adjourned date also the learned Advocate for the petitioner was 3 unwell and, therefore, could not remain present before the court. The alternative arrangements to appear and seek an adjournment did not materialize and the petition was dismissed for non prosecution. Even if that is accepted, nothing stopped the petitioner to apply for restoration within the prescribed limitation period and the delay beyond that period has not been explained. 6. Hence, this application is rejected. Consequently, Criminal Application No. 418 of 2009 for restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2009 does not survive and shall stand disposed as such. However, we make it clear that dismissal of Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2009 will not affect the rights and contentions of the petitioner. (R.Y.GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)