hvn 907//apl//811.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2011 Raja Surendra Singh Chaudhary ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Ashish Chavan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : OCTOBER 14, 2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned A.P.P. for State. During the course of submissions, it is transpired that affidavits of six witnesses were tendered by the applicant to convince the authorities about his stand and non-criminality in his behavioral pattern while living in the vicinity and particularly in Mumbai. It is also canvassed that the applicant has controversies with his wife which has given rise to 1 hvn 907//apl//811.11 the prosecution by her and also in one of the matter, prosecution is at her behest by a stooge. However, these affidavits are not considered by externing authority for want of evidence. After hearing the parties without further adverting to the merits and contentions raised in the petition, situation demands, the applicant shall bring and produce six affiants of whose affidavits he has tendered before the Enquiry Officer (Assistant Commissioner of Police) Goregaon Division Mumbai to enable the learned A.C.P. to make enquiry and to have subjective satisfaction. One of the affiant is complainant in Crime No. 175 of 2005 disputes the events to be blown out of proportion. The orders under challenge dated 20.5.2011 and 1.7.2011 are quashed and set aside. The applicant to produce witnesses before the learned A.C.P. on 2.11.2011. If the learned A.C.P. is busy, he will give another date as per convenience of either witnesses or of the learned A.C.P. However, this exercise of hearing and making enquiry with six witnesses will be completed upto 28.11.2011. The Authorities are at liberty if they are satisfied to pass appropriate orders. 2 hvn 907//apl//811.11 With the above directions, Criminal Application No. 811 of 2011 is disposed of. This court has made no observations on merits of applicant's stand. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3