1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO.393 OF 2009 Sau. Shobha Prakash Kajale ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 6th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard. The Writ Petition is filed against the order rendered in Criminal Case No.68/2002 on 04.04.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.) Sangamner. 2. It appears that under the orders of the Magistrate certain saving certificates and other documents were obtained by the applicant. It also appears that she executed a indemnity bond dated 9th May, 2002, while obtaining the documents and articles in pursuance to the interim order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It appears that the applicant is the original complainant, who had filed the F.I.R. for the offence under Section 498A, 323, 2 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant alleged that she is employed as a Lecturer and had invested the amounts and her husband was demanding the amounts from her relatives. 3. The learned Magistrate directed the applicant to produce the documents and the property articles which were given in her custody during the intervening period, under the interim order, on condition of her agree to produce the same when required. She did not produce those documents and the articles as per the directions of learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the impugned order was passed. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant encashed the Saving certificates which had become mature during intervening period, and therefore, she is unable to produce the original certificates. The query was made to the learned Counsel, as to whether the applicant had obtained the due permission of the learned Magistrate for encashment of Saving certificates, which were given in her custody under the interim order. He submits that she had not sought such permission from the learned Magistrate. It is amply clear, therefore, that during the intervening period, though the applicant was temporarily given custody of the relevant documents and articles yet she did not 3 comply with the terms of Supurtnama executed by her. Whatever action is required to be taken, the learned Magistrate may take in accordance with law. If, the property articles and the documents are not available with the applicant due to such fault committed by her, it would be appropriate for her to explain fact situation to the learned Magistrate and to show her bonafides, if any, and clarify the matter. No reason appears to intervene and set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2009. The Petition is dismissed. Ad- interim relief is vacated. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/criwp393.09