1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.450 OF 2009 Manohar J. Sheety .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra . ... Respondents & Ors. Mr. J.S. Kini, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 27th February, 2009 P.C. 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the order dated 16th February 2009 passed by respondent no.2 in the proceedings filed under Section 116 Cr.P.C. The proceedings under the said provision are required to be concluded and the decision taken thereon within a period of six months from the date of issuance of notice. Sub-Section 6 of Section 116 enables the Magistrate to extend the period for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. In the absence of such order, the proceedings stand automatically terminated on expiry of the period of six months. 2 2. The impugned order extends the time by one month on the ground that the proceedings were delayed on account of the petitioner himself. It is recorded that the petitioner was unco- operative in the proceeding. The learned advocate for him had taken extra ordinarily long time to cross-examine the witnesses and also sought long adjournments to suit his convenience. These reasons in my opinion are sufficient to extend the time. 3. Mr. Kini, the learned counsel for the petitioner complains that the learned Magistrate is not following proper procedure in conducting the enquiry. Since the challenge in the present petition is limited to order dated 16th February 2009, which is for extension of time for completion of the enquiry, the manner in which enquiry is being conducted falls beyond its purview. The applicant is at liberty to agitate the same at the appropriate time in the appropriate proceedings. There is no infirmity in the order under challenge. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)