IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2562 OF 2009 Arun V. Ogale ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, adv. For the Applicant. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP For the Respondent No.1/State. Shri Sanjiv R. Chimbulkar, Respondent No.2 present in Court. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent no.2. By the impugned order dated 19th May, 2009, the learned Third Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge permitted respondent no.2 to submit his written say and to submit oral or written arguments contesting the application filed by the applicant for discharge. Respondent no.2 claims to be public spirited person and activist. Chargesheet in the case was filed against four persons including present applicant in spite of deaths of large number of persons due to collapse of a building. Respondent no.2 has filed private complaints against 102 persons including four accused against whom chargesheet is filed by the police. He sought permission from the Sessions Court to contest the said application for discharge wherein the impugned order was passed. - 2 - 2 Respondent no.2 makes categorical statement before this Court that he will file fresh reply to the said application for discharge and shall also submit only written notes of arguments contesting that application and that his reply and the notes of arguments shall be based on the material placed by the prosecution before the Court and chargesheet. In view of this statement, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused concedes that the limited right of hearing may be given to the respondent no.2. In view of the above, the present revision application stands disposed off with the following directions: 1. Respondent no.2 shall submit his reply to the application for discharge and if he so desires, he shall be permitted to submit written notes of arguments based on the material placed before the Court by the prosecution alongwith the chargesheet. He will not base his arguments on anything which is not relied upon by the prosecution even though he might have used that material in his private complaint. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)