1 14.appln 4038.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ata CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATIOIN NO.4038 OF 2010 Rajan K. Desai .. Applicant Vs. Smt. Vidya Chavan and Ors .. Respondents Mr. V. V. Purwant, for the Applicant. Mr. Prakash Naik, for the Respondent No.1 Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 24.08.2011 P.C.: The Applicant-Rajan Desai has filed complaint Under section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Respondent and the others . During the course of evidence, an application was moved by the Petitioner, to summons Shri.P. D. Shahu, eye witness to the incident of removing house hold articles in a tempo. The Learned Judge rejected the same. Hence the present application. 2 The evidence of one Mr. Todankar ( PW-2) suggest that he received information from Mr. P. D. Shahu. Though Mr. Shahu is not referred as witness, however that will not abridge rights of the complainant or for that purpose, the Court to summon him. I could see there is inordinate delay in making application. Witness summons was moved on 25.09.2099 and 2 14.appln 4038.10.sxw present application was moved on 17.06.2010. 3 Even if there is delay, however that will not mean to squeezing of rights of the applicant to call the witness for evidence. It is for the witness to state what he has seen or what is the matter . Taking these aspects into consideration the order dated 16.06.2010 recorded by the Learned 32th Court at Bandra, in Criminal Misc. Application in C. C. NO.1468/SW/05 is rejected. However, the applicant shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent No.1 Smt. Vidya within two weeks directly under a cheque or bankers pay order. 4 Considering the controversy between the estrained couple, the Learned Judge seized with the matter, shall hear the same peremptorily. Petition disposed of. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. )