WP.2153-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 2153 OF 2010 Nagaraj Irappa Hadpad ...Petitioner Vs. Shivlal Yamanappa Jadhav & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Surel S. Shah, for the Petitioner. Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 17, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 12th July, 2010 whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the application filed by the accused for issuance of witness summons to the witnesses, mentioned in his application dated 12th July, 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under- WP.2153-10 - 2 - . A complaint was filed against the petitioner under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in 2005. The process was issued and it was immediately served on him. The statements under S. 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded on 1-9-2008. Thereafter applications were filed for issuance of witness summons. However, no further steps were taken by the accused. When the matter was kept for arguments, an application was filed for issuance of witness summons to three other witnesses. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has observed that accused is trying to protract the trial by filing frivolous applications. I have perused the impugned order. The learned Magistrate by a well reasoned order has rejected the petitioner’s application for issuance of witness summons. 3. It is no doubt true that the accused have a right to put up his defence by examining the witnesses. However, that right should not be misused by them for the purpose of protracting the trial. The learned Magistrate has observed that on more than one occasion after the statement under S. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in 2008, applications were made by the accused for issuance of witness summons and though the said application was allowed, no further steps were taken for examining the said witnesses, and thereafter when the matter was fixed for final hearing, again fresh application was made. In these circumstances, WP.2153-10 - 3 - therefore, in my view, learned Magistrate was justified in coming to the conclusion that accused was trying to protract hearing of the case and his intention of filing such an application for issuing witness summons was mala fide and not genuine. Case was filed in in the year 2005, more than five years have elapsed and the accused had succeeded in delaying the trial. Under these circumstances, therefore, no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the learned Magistrate, by the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court shall hear and decide the case as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from toady. [ V. M. KANADE J.]