IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.158 OF 200 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.158 OF 200 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.158 OF 2008 Mr. Jalindar Yadav.... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra....... Respondent. Mr. Indrajit Joshi i/b Anil Joshi for the petitioner Mrs. M.H. Mhatre APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. An order passed way back in the year 2004 by the Sessions Judge rejecting a discharge application, has been challenged belatedly by filing the present petition in the year 2008. The delay has not at all been explained. The application for discharge moved before the Sessions judge is also not filed on record of the writ petition. It is tried to be contended that the petitioner not being either the husband or family member of the husband, section 498- A has no application. In the absence of such a plea being raised before the Sessions Judge, a plea based on fact cannot be for the first time considered in the writ petition. The impugned order reveals that no such contention was raised before the Sessions Judge. For the reasons set out hereinabove, I decline to exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioner and the writ petition stands summarily dismissed on account of delay and latches. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial be expedited. The Learned APP does not have any objection for expediting the trial. As the trial is pending for last eight years, I deem it appropriate to direct the Sessions judge to expeditly hear and decide the matter. ....