- 1 - 4344 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4344 OF 2010 Shri Pundalik Annasaheb Deshmukh. Applicants & anr vs 1. Smt Usha Ravindra Bhutkar & anr. Respondents Applicant No.1 present in person Mr.R.M.More APP for Respondent-State CORAM: N.D.DESHPANDE, J DATE: 31st January,2011 P.C. 1. Heard the applicant who is appearing in person. He informed that the respondents are served and he is having acknowledge of service. The applicant is a pensioner retired from government service as an Avval Karkun in 1999. Since 1999 the dispute started by him against the respondents who is his neighbor. Initially there was complaint filed by him to the Municipal Council, Karjat impugning the construction which the respondents had started touching - 2 - 4344 his common wall. Normally, such disputes are very common between neighbors and once court proceedings are initiated then the dispute does not confine only to that. There are many offshoots. 2. Firstly, the Petitioner made an application to the Municipal Council, Karjat pointing out the illegal and unauthorised construction being carried out by respondent no.1. It is also informed that the respondent no.1 filed a civil suit bearing No.16 of 1999 for a permanent injunction restraining the present Petitioner from interfering with construction done by her. 3. The Petitioner had also filed one suit against the respondents. Admittedly, the said suit and appeal arising therefrom both came to be dismissed. The Petitioner submitted that his civil suit was dismissed - 3 - 4344 not on merit but, on the ground of limitation as barred. The present application is filed against the two orders passed in criminal proceedings initiated by the Petitioner on a complaint being Summary case No.34 of 2009 before the J.M.F.C.Karjat. The said complaint was dismissed, so also Sessions Court dismissed by an order dated 14.7.2010 and now both the orders are challenged by him before this court in an appeal filed along with an application for leave. 4. Original complaint came to be filed by the petitioner for the mischief played by the respondents by doing illegal and unauthorised construction. Consequently Petitioner was obstructed from doing his work and according to him it is continuing mischief. However, nothing is pointed out on record that after the impugned construction, - 4 - 4344 respondent had carried out any further construction work for new cause of action for alleged mischief committed by the respondents. 5. I have gone through the impugned orders. Both the courts have recorded valid reasons which are based on material on record. It has been rightly held that the complaint which was filed to the Municipal Council was barred by time. There is no explanation for the delay. In the absence of such averments for explanation the impugned order dated 14.7.2010 passed by Additional District and Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2009 therefore, calls for no interference. Leave therefore is refused. N.D.Deshpande, J - 5 - 4344