1 (Cri Appln 188 of 2010 in WP 1653 of 2008) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1653 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1654 OF 2008 Mr.Mohd.Akbar ...Applicant/ Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ****** Ms.Jagruti Rebello i/b. Mr. Rahul Kulkarni for Applicant /Petitioner Mr.Manoj Patil i/b. Mr. Abhinandan B. Vagyani for Respondent No.2 Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. 2. This is an application for restoration of writ petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the advocate on record is busy in some other Court. When the matter was called 2 (Cri Appln 188 of 2010 in WP 1653 of 2008) out in the morning, at that time also it was mentioned that Mr. Rahul Kulkarni is busy in some other Court. 3. This is an application for restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No. 1653 of 2008 which was dismissed for non compliance of the conditional order dated 23rd September, 2008. The record indicates that on 13th August, 2008, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had submitted that apart from the contentions raised by the Petitioner on merits, he is ready and willing to amicably settle the dispute and, therefore, till the next date, ad-interim relief was granted. After having obtained the ad-interim relief, it appears that no steps were taken by the Petitioner for service o the Respondents and, as a result, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, this application has been filed for restoration on 22.4.2010. 4. There is a gross delay of one year and 18 days in filing this application. Perusal of the application shows that no explanation has been given for the delay caused in filing this application. This application appears to have been filed in a most casual manner. 3 (Cri Appln 188 of 2010 in WP 1653 of 2008) 5. It appears that after showing willingness to the Court that the Petitioner wants to settle the matter, the Petitioner obtained the ad-interim relief and no steps were taken for serving the Respondents. Even in this application, the advocate on record Mr. Rahul Kulkarni has not remained present though the matter was called out twice. 6. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the amount of cheque was Rs.10,000/- in both these cases. 7. So far as the merits of the main petition is concerned, it can be seen from the averments made in the criminal writ petition that the only ground on which the order of issuance of process is challenged, is that in Ground (D) . The Petitioner has stated that the Lower Court failed to appreciate the fact that though the Petitioner was willing to pay the cheque amount, the complainant did not withdraw the complaint. Though this ground is taken, and though the matter was pending in this Court from 2008, the Petitioner has not deposited the said amount of cheque in this Court till 4 (Cri Appln 188 of 2010 in WP 1653 of 2008) this date. Therefore, on merits no case is made out by the Petitioner for interfering with the order of issuance of process and therefore, even the writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed on merits. 8. This is a clear case where the Petitioner has abuse the process of this Court for the purpose of prolonging the trial and there has been deliberate attempt in prolonging the trial and obtaining ad-interim relief by misleading this Court. The Application is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs.5,000/-. 9. Hearing of the trial is expedited. The Trial Court shall decide the case within three months. The costs to be deposited in the Trial Court within four weeks. 10. After this order was dictated, Advocate Shri Rahul Kulkarni, mentioned the matter and submitted that the said matter may be recalled and heard on merits. I have already after paragraph 7, after referring to the grounds in the petition, considered the submissions of the Petitioner on merits and I have held that even on merits, no case is made out. Therefore, the question of 5 (Cri Appln 188 of 2010 in WP 1653 of 2008) again hearing Advocate Shri Rahul Kulkarni does not arise. This request is declined. (V.M. KANADE J.)