40appln4142-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 40 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4142 OF 2013 IN WP/72/2000 Shivraj Hanumantrao Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ... Mr. Shankar B. Kendre h/for Mr. Gaddime Arvind N., Advocate for Applicant Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 28th September, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent State. 2. The present application is filed for restoration of original proceedings i.e. Writ Petition No. 72 of 2000. The original proceedings came to be dismissed by this Court on 14.06.2012 by observing that the matter was admitted was kept for final hearing. However, as the petitioner did not appear on the date for the final hearing the matter was dismissed. The present application is filed on 13.08.2013 seeking restoration of the original proceedings with a prayer for condonation of delay of 396 days in filing of the application. 3. Though I have gone through the contents of the application, and not satisfied with the explanation tendered in the said application 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:45909 40appln4142-23 for condonation of delay, still in the interest of of justice, with the assistance the learned Advocates appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the State, I have gone through the original proceedings. 4. The original proceedings are filed challenging the order dated 17.03.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1997. The revision preferred by the State came to be allowed and the order of the learned JMFC refusing to accept ‘B’ summary report has been set aside. ‘B’ summary report in Crime No. 140 of 1994 was directed to be accepted, however, the observation was made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in the operative part of the order clause 3 that the “no action under section 395 IPC be taken against the complainant.” The present applicant challenges the only that portion of the order by stating that the complaint was bogus and forged and false and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, out not to have observed that said portion in the operative part of the order dated 17.03.1999. 5. 5. After hearing both the sides, the grounds that has been raised in the present original proceedings are not satisfactory for the reason that in case the application is of the opinion that his prosecution was lodged on the basis of false or bogus documents, then the applicant had appropriate remedy to approach the concerned court by lodging 2 of 3 40appln4142-23 appropriate proceedings against the complainant. Whether the documents were bogus or false cannot be inferred by looking at those documents. The same has to be proved on the basis of the evidence. The proceedings under section 395 of IPC are the proceedings inter se between the court and the party who has submitted the documents. While scrutinizing the inducements, at least the record of the case does not indicate that the court had prima facie formed its opinion that there was any falsity or the complaint was bogus. Even after investigation the police has filed ‘B’ summary report. Thus, they themselves have concluded that the complaint is neither false not true. 6. In the light of the above, as the original proceeding itself does not deserve any merit, the present application cannot be considered after lapse of several years and that too for condonation of delay of 396 days. Hence, the application has no merit, and stands dismissed. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 3 of 3