1 1944.11 Cri.Appln. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1944 OF 2011 in CRIMINAL APPLICATION 1298 OF 2006 Dilip S/o Pandit Patil ... APPLICANT VERSUS Ravindra s/o Laxman Gangurde ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri R.S. Shinde, Advocate h/f N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for applicant Shri M.T. Thorbole, Advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 23 rd September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The applicant / Original complainant in S.T.C.C. No. 2752/2001 lodged in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule, is seeking extension of time to deposit / pay the cost of Rs. 2,000/- awarded as per the order dated 31-08-2010 passed in Criminal Application No. 1298/2006 for restoration of the complaint bearing S.T.C.C. No. 2752/2001. 2 1944.11 Cri.Appln. 2. Perusal of the record reveals that Criminal application No. 1298/2006 for leave to file appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 334/2010, was allowed and the impugned order in Criminal Appeal No. 334/2010 dismissing the complaint bearing S.T.C.C. No. 2752/2001 for want of prosecution was set aside and the said criminal case was restored to its original position to be proceeded with in accordance with law and disposed off within a period of four months thereafter, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of said order of restoration of the said complaint i.e. 31-08-2010. Cost was to be deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule within the given period. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is an agriculturist from village Puramepada, Taluka & District Dhule, and the communication gap between him and his Advocate practicing before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule, resulted in the delay in compliance of the order dated 31-08-2010, passed in Criminal Application No. 1298/2006. 4. According to the contesting respondent, Ravindra Gangurde, the applicants plea is not bonafide and the applicant is 3 1944.11 Cri.Appln. interested in protracting the case. Learned Advocate for the applicant, thereupon posed a pertinent question as to why the applicant who has lodged the Criminal Case for dishonor of his cheque would like to protract the said case and delay its fruits. There is no answer to this question. However, a fact remains that disposal of the said case has been stretched considerably, thereby placing the respondent / accused in a shadow of the case so long. 5. Considering these facts and circumstances, the following order is passed : ORDER A] The applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule, on or before 30-09-2011. B] The order dated 31-08-2010 passed in Criminal Application No. 1298/2006 stands modified to this extent, other terms and conditions remaining in the same and to be operative from the date of passing of this order. 4 1944.11 Cri.Appln. C] The parties are present before this Court and shall take due note of this order. D] The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. Criminal Application No. 1944/2011 stands disposed off finally. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* September-11