ORDER Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed by the accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 (petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 before the High Court) against the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the High Court (Single Judge) in Criminal Writ petition no. 766/2015 which arise out of an interim order dated 31.01.2015 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai in case no. !93/SW/2006. 3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass . They, however, need mention infra in brief. 4. The appellants (accused) herein are facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC on a private complaint filed by respondent no. 1 against the appellants in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai in case no. 193/SW/2006. 5. The appellants on being served with the notice of the proceedings applied to the Metropolitan Magistrate seeking exemption from their personal appearance on every date of hearing in the aforementioned complaint case as according to them they were already represented by their lawyer in the case, it was not necessary for them to appear personally on every date of hearing unless required for any special cause and secondly, being the residents of Bangaluru, it was not possible for them to remain personally present on every date of hearing at Mumbai, it being very costly affair for them apart from suffering extreme inconvenience if asked to appear personally. 6. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to grant exemption as prayed by the appellants and rejected the application by order dated 31.01.2015. Felt aggrieved, the appellants filed writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appellants’ writ petition giving rise to filing of this S.L.P. by the appellants. 7. Both the Courts below declined to grant exemption on the ground that since the appellants have exploited the indulgence granted to them in past and hence they were no more entitled to seek further indulgence on the issue of exemption. 8. Heard Ms. Pritha Srikumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Anu Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 9. 8. Heard Ms. Pritha Srikumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Anu Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 9. At the outset, we consider it apposite to mention that learned counsel for the appellants made an offer without prejudice to their right to contest the complaint on merits on factual and legal issues as may be available to them in law that appellants are ready and willing to deposit Rs. 5,37,316/- (which is subject matter of the complaint) in the Court and on such deposit being made, this Court may consider granting exemption to the appellants from their personal appearance in the pending complaint case. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 while supporting the impugned order, however, contended that the appellants be further directed to deposit the interest amount which according to the respondent no. 1 has accrued on the principal sum till date in addition to the deposit of principal amount as offered by the appellants’ counsel. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above and lastly, taking into consideration the offer made by the appellants through their counsel which we consider just and proper, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,37,316/- in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai within one month from the date of this order. 12. On such deposit being made, the appellants will be granted exemption from their personal appearance in the complaint case. In case, if the appellants fail to deposit the amount as directed, then in such event, the appellants will have to appear on every date of hearing till complaint is finally decided. 13. The Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to decide the complaint case in accordance with law preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Depending upon the outcome of the case, appropriate direction in relation to the amount deposited by the appellants be passed. No costs.