1 cr-appw-191-192-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 191 OF 2010 IN W.P.NO. 2758 OF 2009 WITH CRI.APPLN.NO. 192 OF 2010 IN W.P.NO.2741 OF 2009 The Registrar of Companies ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr. J.R.Solanki Adv. for applicant Mr. Siddhesh Bhole along with Mr.Abhijeet Shirol i/b Mr. Haresh Jogtiani and Associates for Respondents Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State Mr.Shailesh Mehta Intervenor in person. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2010 P.C.: 1 In view of the letter of the learned Magistrate, this Court by order dated 1.9.2010 granted extension of time to him to dispose of two cases before him. Time was extended upto 25.11.2010. The said caes are CC No. 7700 of 2008 and 7067 of 2008 which are pending before 2 cr-appw-191-192-10 the learned Magistrate Esplanade, 37th Court, Mumbai. 2 Shri. Solanki the learned counsel appearing for the Registrar of Companies and the complainant Shri. Mehta who is present in person have brought to my notice that respondent no.6 Mr. Pravinchand Gandhi expired and as far as other respondent nos.2 to 5, 7 and 8 are concerned, they had preferred application for discharge before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. By order dated 10/12th May, 2010, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application for discharge. Being aggrieved thereby the respondent nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 8 preferred CRA No. 549 of 2010 before the Sessions Court. The matter is pending before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has granted stay to the proceedings before the Magistrate. Hence, Shri. Solanki and Shri. Mehta submitted that when the trial has been stayed by the Sessions Court, obviously the trial in these cases cannot proceed before the learned Magistrate and in such case the learned Magistrate cannot dispose of the cases by 25.11.2010. 3 Admittedly, the accused have a right to apply for discharge which the accused have done in this case. If the application for discharge is rejected, obviously they have a right to challenge the same which the accused have done. However, Shri. Solanki and Shri. Mehta state that the grounds stated in the discharge application are the same 3 cr-appw-191-192-10 as those taken by the accused in Writ Petition Nos. 2758 of 2009 and 2741 of 2009 which had been preferred by the respondents in both these cases for quashing the proceedings. They submitted that hence, the respondents cannot be discharged on the same grounds. It would be open for the applicant and the complainant who is appearing in person, to point out these facts to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after considering the contentions of all necessary parties, to dispose of the said criminal Revision Applications. 4 This Court has already extended the time to dispose of the trial till 25.11.2010. However, in view of the fact that Criminal Revision Applications for discharge are pending before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court to dispose of the said Criminal Revision Applications as far as possible by 30.9.2010. The time granted to the learned Magistrate is accordingly extended by the period taken by the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the Criminal Revision Applications. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]