: 1 : A-309-10=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 184 OF 2010 Bhagwant Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .. Applicants v/s. Vijayprakash Ambadas Joshi & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. T.D. Deshmukh for the applicants Mr. I.M. Khairdi for respondent no.1 Mrs. U.V. Kejariwal, APP for State ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 6th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, detailed reasons need not be given for grant of this application. It has been the stand of the applicants that respondent no.1 committed forgery in respect of certain documents, which came to be filed before the School Tribunal, Solapur and on the strength of those documents an order was passed in favour of the respondent no.1. The applicant filed criminal application before the School Tribunal, Solapur praying that the said Tribunal should file a complaint against respondent no.1 for the appropriate offences as the : 2 : A-309-10=.doc respondent no.1 has committed forgery in respect of the documents, which were placed before the School Tribunal. The matter went on from one Court to the other and ultimately the present applicants were finally informed by order dated 5th August, 2009 that the applicants will have to file a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class on the basis of the allegations stated in the complaint. 2. I have perused the entire record. It seems that the Chief Judicial Magistrate who dealt with the complaint filed by the applicants viz. Miscellaneous Application No.367 of 2009 as well as the learned Member of the School Tribunal were not conversant with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of Eqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005)4 SCC 370, which had a bearing on the present proceedings. If the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case reported in 2005(4) SCC 370 would have been cited before aforesaid Courts, surely the different order would have been passed. The Chairman of the applicants was reported to be sick. Looking to the orders, which have been passed from time to time and explanation for delay, I am inclined to observe that the delay in filling the present appeal should be condoned, though objected by learned Counsel for respondent no.1. In view of the above, following order is passed. : 3 : A-309-10=.doc ORDER (i) Criminal Application is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) Delay in filing the Criminal Appeal is condoned. (iii) Office to scrutinize the appeal and after removing the objections place it for admission. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)