- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2389 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2389 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2389 OF 2008 Mahendra Shivaji Udeshi ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra (General Branch/Crime Branch/ C.I.D. Mumbai) at the instance of Kishan K. Khanna ...Respondent Mr.M.S.Udeshi, Advocate in Person Ms A.T.Javeri A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 15,2009 : APRIL 15,2009 : APRIL 15,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the petitioner appearing in person. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under section 467, 468, 471, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution was initiated at the instance of one K.K.Khanna who had lodged the complaint against the petitioner who is a practicing Advocate. However, the petitioner was discharged for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Trial for offences under sections 420 and 409 was ordered to proceed against the petitioner. In the year 1994, charge was framed against the petitioner for the said offences. The complainant K.K.Khanna is stated to be an Ex-client of the petitioner. 2. One of the allegations against the petitioner is that the complainant’s wife signed two blank letters having dates of - 2 - 15th March 1988 and 8th September 1988. The allegation is that in order to cover up the alleged offences of cheating and mis appropriation, the petitioner incorporated the contents in the said blank letters. According to the petitioner, the said letters constitute the memorandum of settlement of the Advocate’s fees and expenses. The petitioner has filed a civil suit for recovery of his balance amount of professional fees on the basis of the said letters. Earlier, the petitioner applied for stay of proceedings of the criminal case pending the final disposal of the civil suit filed by him. The said application was rejected. According to the petitioner, when the said application was rejected, summons for judgment in the summary suit filed by him was pending. Subsequently, the civil court granted unconditional leave to the original complainant to defend the said suit. According to the petitioner an issue was framed in the said suit casting the entire burden on the complainant to prove that the said two letters have been forged. 3. The petitioner made an application before the learned Magistrate praying that the hearing of the criminal case pending against him be stayed or hearing of the criminal case be postponed till the disposal of the civil suit. By order dated 11th January 2008, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application. The revision application preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. - 3 - 4. The contention of the petitioner appearing in person is that if the original complainant succeeds in discharging the burden casted on him in the civil suit to prove the forgery, the criminal court can proceed against the petitioner. He submitted that if the civil court decides the issue of forgery against the original complainant, then his suit is bound to be decreed and the criminal charges of cheating and misappropriation will fall to the ground. He placed reliance on the certain decisions in support of his case. He placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in case of Thakorlal Vadilal Vs. Ambalal Bhikabhi Patel (A.I.R. 1942 Bom. 330). He placed relianced on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Smt.Raminder Kaur Bedi vs. Jatinder Singh Bedi decided on 22nd November 1988. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is pertinent to note that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner is of the year 1991. The charge has been framed against the petitioner in the year 1994. The petitioner had earlier applied for the same relief before the Sessions Court which has been admittedly denied to him By order dated 6th December 1993 passed by this court in Criminal Application no.3257 of 1993, the trial was ordered to be concluded on or before 30th June 1994. Thereafter, there is a further order dated 31st March 2008 passed by this court in - 4 - criminal application no.2335 of 2007 directing the trial court to decide the criminal case by 31st August 2008. However, the said time limit has not been complied with. The Apex Court repeatedly held that as between the civil and criminal proceedings, the criminal proceedings should be given precedence. It is not the case that the civil suit has now reached the final hearing or that it is likely to be disposed of immediately. To the trial of the year 1991 it will be unjust to grant stay in the year 2009 on the ground that the civil suit is pending between the parties. 6. In the circumstances, the courts below were right in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner. Hence, no interference is called for. 7. Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE