IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2023

Ramprakash Sankalp Mishra .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2568 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2023

Ramprakash Sankalp Mishra .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................

• Mr. A. K. Shukla, Advocate for Applicant.
• Ms. Manisha Tidke, APP for Respondent No.1 the State of Maharashtra.
• Ms. Jagruti Vemula, Advocate i/by Mr. Rahul Karnik for Respondent No.2.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 17, 2024

P.C . :

1. Heard Mr. Shukla, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Tidke, learned APP for Respondent No.1 - the State of Maharashtra and Ms. Vemula, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. Mr. Shukla has filed Affidavit dated 15.12.2024. He would submit that out of the amount directed to be deposited by order dated 19.11.2024, Applicant could manage to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- only. He would submit that there were extreme financial constraints for him to arrange the entire amount. He would state that Applicant undertakes to deposit the entire balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- including the outstanding amount which has remained to be paid as directed vide order dated 19.11.2024 within a period of sixty days from today. The Affidavit dated 15.12.2024 filed by Applicant is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. It is taken as an undertaking given to this Court.

3. In view of said Affidavit, the direction contained in the order dated 19.11.2024 of stay of Non-Bailable Warrant which has been passed and executed by Executing Court shall stand stayed for a period of 60 days from today. It is clarified that no further extension of time shall be granted.

4. Though Mr. Shukla would submit that though in the interregnum as per Consent Terms arrived at between the parties, some directions be given to Respondent to withdraw the proceedings which are pending in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi. He would submit that if these proceedings are withdrawn, it would enable the Applicant to raise the money immediately.

5. In the present Application, I cannot direct the Revision Applicant to withdraw the proceedings. It shall be open to Respondent to persuade and convince Respondent to do so. Leaving all contentions open, it shall be open to Applicant to persuade the

2 of 3

Respondent for withdrawal of the subject proceeding, so that the outstanding amount can be paid fully to Respondent. This Court cannot intervene in the above issue regarding withdrawal of proceedings.

6. The necessity of passing above order and direction is only in view of fact that out of the total liability of Rs.14,50,000/- the Revision Application has already shown his bonafides by depositing Rs.11,00,000/- uptil today and this Court is therefore indulgent in granting the above extension.

7. Stand over to 13 th January, 2025.

H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2024.12.17 18:14:46 +0530