1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.480 OF 2009 (INDERJEETSINGH JOGINDERSINGH CHOWDHARY...Vs..STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri R.P.Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JUNE 19, 2009. 1. This application came to be listed before me presumably because the regular Bench was of the view that stay to the further proceedings of the trial Court, granted by me on 30th September, 2008 in Criminal Application No. 3427 of 2008, still continues. This stay was granted only till 14.10.2008. On 14.10.2008 it was continued till next date and on the next date the stay was not continued. Therefore, as far as my order is concerned the stay does not continue. Thereafter Criminal Application No.3427 of 2008 was admitted by the Bench considering the application and therein interim order was directed to continue, when, in fact, the interim order was not in force, which should have been brought to the notice of the Court. 2 2. Be that as it may. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.3750 of 2006 have been held up under the mistaken belief that the stay, granted on 30th September, 2008, is still continuing and this prevents his client from seeking discharge before the trial Magistrate, for which he has already applied. He states that he would not press his prayer clause (1) for quashing the proceedings and would restrict his application to prayer clause (2). 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who opposes even this prayer. 4. It is not clear as to what useful purpose would be served by his preventing the learned Magistrate to consider applicant’s application for discharge. The learned Magistrate would undoubtedly restrict himself to the case of the present applicant and would be circumspect in deciding the application considering implication that it may have on the other accused persons. With this caution, there should be no harm in allowing prayer clause (2). 3 5. In view of this, the Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (2) by directing the Magistrate to consider the application for discharge dated 24.01.2007, filed by the applicant in Regular Criminal Case No.3750 of 2006, on its own merits, as far as possible within a period of three months. 6. With this direction, the application stands disposed of. JUDGE RR.