* 1 * W.P. 1658.2010 1.03.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1658 OF 2010 Vivekanand Mangalprasad Ajgaonkar ....... Petitioner V/S. Shri. Santosh Vitthal Rane & anr. ...... Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Mahesh Rawool, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajit M. Savagave h/f. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for State­respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 1st March, 2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition challenges the orders dated 11th March, 2010 and 19th March, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg and for quashing of the appeal proceedings, being Criminal Appeal No.20 * 2 * W.P. 1658.2010 1.03.2011 of 2010 pending before the Sessions Court, Sindhudurg at Oras. 3. The respondent had filed proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner being S.C.C. No.68 of 2006 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sawantwadi. The complaint came to be dismissed for default on 15th January, 2008 and the petitioner acquitted of the offence. This order of dismissal of the proceedings was challenged by the respondent not by preferring an appeal against acquittal to this Court but by filing Revision Application before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court by its order dated 26th June, 2008 allowed the Revision Application. That order came to be set aside by this Court by allowing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1975 of 2008 filed by the petitioner herein. By the same order, the respondent was granted liberty to prefer appropriate proceedings in respect of the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 256 Criminal Procedure Code. The appropriate step was to approach this Court with an application for leave to prefer appeal against the judgment of acquittal. However, the respondent once again approached the District Court by filing Criminal Appeal with an application for condonation of delay. The * 3 * W.P. 1658.2010 1.03.2011 Sessions Court allowed the application for condonation of delay and issued notice to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel for the respondent concedes in fairness that the appeal filed by the respondent to the Sessions Court challenging the order of acquittal of the petitioner in the proceedings filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, is not maintainable. He only seeks liberty to file appropriate proceedings to challenge the original order of dismissal of the complaint. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The respondent is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings to challenge the order of dismissal of the complaint. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]