1 APL 207.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.207 OF 2011 Atul Shirodkar .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Kunal Cheema for the applicant. Smt.A.A.Mane APP for the State. CORAM : U.D.SALVI, J. DATED : MARCH 24, 2011. PC: 1. Heard. Perused. 2. The grievance is made by the petitioner-complainant, proprietor of Reatox Builders and Developers that the learned 53rd Court at Mulund, Mumbai on the application moved by the accused in Criminal Case No.03/PW/2008 registered upon his complaint has expedited the said case unmindful of pendency of the old cases before him. The application dated 15.10.2010 moved by the accused before the learned Magistrate reveals that the order for expediting the proceedings was solicited after framing of the charges and dismissal of the application for discharge of the accused therefrom and the accused pleaded: (i) That the complainant was avoiding adducing of oral evidence S 2 APL 207.11 before the court, (ii) The case is the outcome of SRA project in which the accused are involved and the project is not progressing and the complainant is interested in lingering of the criminal case for getting advantage in the civil cases pending before this court, City Civil Court and Slum authorities, and the Criminal Procedure Code expects expeditious disposal of the cases. 3. The petitioner-complainant resisted the application with his reply dated 26th October, 2010. The petitioner-complainant contended before the learned Magistrate: (i) That it was the police case. (ii) The Hon’ble Chief Justice had led down the target to clear the backlog and set deadline of December, 2010 for clearing ten years old cases and December, 2011 for clearing five years old cases. (iii) There was no order from the Superior Court to expedite the proceedings. In support of his contention regarding setting up of the target about clearing of backlog of cases reliance was placed by the complainant upon the letters issued by this court and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s office as quoted in paragraph 7 of the reply. In paragraph 5 of the impugned order dated 7.3.2011 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded that he was conscious of pendency of the cases and was duty bound to prefer old matters, and yet considering the facts of the case in question regarding civil 3 APL 207.11 matters and character assasination of the accused persons, the direction for expediting the matter was justified. 6. The grievance made seemingly takes cudgels on behalf of the litigants at large. However, behind this facade there is an individual interest which is hard to conceal. Needless to state that every court is captain of its ship in its own domain and has to manage its business taking into consideration the law and the directions including the circulars issued by the Superior Court. If the court feels that by giving precedence to any individual case it is still in position to comply with the law and the directions given by the Superior Court, the court is within its bound, and no interference is warranted in such actions bonafidely taken by the subordinate court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances in the present case, it is suffice to observe that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 53rd Court, Mulund, Mumbai shall be free to deal with the case in question expeditiously subject to he observing the mandate of law and directions given by the Superior Court. With these observations no further interference is warranted in the present case. The application stands disposed of accordingly. 8. Nothing is observed on the merits of the case. (U.D.SALVI, J.)