1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.95 OF 2010 Rajkumar Motilal Shah ..Petitioner V/s K.D. & Company ..Respondent ..... Mr.P. R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for petitioner. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 26th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent absent, although served. 2. The petitioner is the original accused no.1 in Criminal Misc.Application No.21/2009 dated 15.01.2007, which was filed by respondent herein namely, R.D. & Company for condonation of delay of 62 days caused in filing said complaint (Exh.A, page 12). The petitioner herein filed Say to the said application on 2nd April, 2009 and opposed said application (Exh.D, page 15). The said delay was sought to be condoned by respondent herein on the ground of illness. Considering the contents of the said application and Say filed by petitioner herein, learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule passed an order on 9th May, 2009 (Page no.14A) and allowed the said delay condonation application and condoned the delay subject to payment of cost 2 of Rs.1000/-. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, petitioner herein preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 124/2009 before the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhule under Section 397 r/w Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 11.08.2009 (Exh.D, page 20). Accordingly, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhule passed order thereon on 13.08.2009 and thereby stayed impugned order. Thereafter, the said Criminal Revision Application came to be decided by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhule on 05.10.2009 and thereby dismissed said Criminal Revision Application preferred by petitioner herein. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 05.10.2009, dismissing Criminal Revision Application, petitioner filed present Writ Petition seeking appropriate writ to quash and set aside impugned judgment and order in Criminal Misc.Application No.21/2009 passed by 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Dhule dated 09.05.2009 as well as judgment and order in Criminal Revision Application No.124/2009 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dated 05.10.2009. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent absent, although service of notice. 5. At the outset, it appears that learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule has passed impugned order on 09.05.2009 condoning the delay for 62 days caused in filing Criminal Complaint by respondent herein before the said Court on delay condonation application preferred by respondent herein 3 on 15.01.2007, and it also appears that learned Judge observed that the said delay was not deliberate and intentional, and therefore, same is liable to be condoned. While condoning the said delay cost of Rs.1000/- was awarded to respondent and petitioner herein was duly compensated by said order. Accordingly, it appears that the reasons adopted by learned Judge while passing the said order are proper, logical and no interference therein is warranted. 6. Moreover, after perusal of impugned order passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhule, dismissing Criminal Revision Application preferred by petitioner herein, challenging aforesaid order passed by learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule also does not appear to be perverse and learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhule has rightly dismissed Revision Application preferred by petitioner herein, since after perusal of impugned order, learned Judge did not find any illegality and incorrectness therein. In the circumstances, present Petition bears no substance. 7. However, learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that while opposing application for condonation of delay, petitioner filed Say on 2nd April, 2009 and point was raised in respect of improper verification of complaint and learned counsel requested that same be kept open for agitation. Considering the said submission, since apparently there is no observations in the impugned order passed by learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule on 09th May, 2009 in respect of the said aspect, it can be kept open for agitation for petitioner, and accordingly, present Petition deserves to be dismissed with the aforesaid 4 observations. 8. In the result, present Writ Petition stands dismissed keeping the aspect of alleged improper verification of the complaint, open for agitation for petitioner at the appropriate time. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/criwp95.10