IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 32 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 98 OF 2009 SHREE KALIKA URBAN CO.OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER SANJEEV NAGVEKAR ... Applicant Versus SHRI. RAVINDRA MOHAN MHAMAL AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. Palkar, Advocate holding for Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.2. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 1st February, 2010 P.C. Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel for the Applicant. Perused the application and the affidavit in support thereof. 2. Record discloses that the Respondent No.1 who is original Accused has avoided the process of this Court by way of summons and thereafter warrants by avoiding their services thereof. It appears that the Respondent No.1/Accused is trying to keep away from the above proceedings by avoiding the execution of the warrant which has been issued to secure his presence. Hence, the above Criminal Misc. Application is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). 3. On compliance, the learned Counsel for the Applicant to file purshis annexing proclamation issued in the local newspaper. Criminal Misc. Application is accordingly disposed of. R. M. SAVANT, J. at*