1 16.wp.108.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.108 OF 2023 Nilesh Govardhandas Dammani .Vs. Shri Datta Fertilizers & Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. S. Alaspurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATED : 10/03/2025 1. The present proceeding is apparently nothing but misuse of process of law, designed to protract the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the respondent in the year 2019. 2. The order under challenge in the present writ petition is dated 08.09.2022, passed by the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, which read thus :- “Perused application and Say on it. Heard both sides. Perused record. Record shows that already returned envelope is marked as Exh.33 pass. Passing order below Exh.3 on 20.06.2022. Learned Advocate how opened next envelope in court in which the notice was there which, accordingly to the complainant, was not sent to the accused. Complainant has deposed about this in his evidence about this are yet. The cross examination of the complainant not resumed. Hence no prejudice will cause to accused, if the said notice is exhibited. Hence, the notice along with envelope be exihibited.” 2025:BHC-NAG:2489 2 16.wp.108.23.odt 3. It is evident from the order that the return envelope containing the notice issued to the petitioner was marked as Exh.33 vide order below Exh.3 passed on 20.06.2022. 4. Admittedly, the order dated 20.06.2022, is the subject matter of challenge before the Revisional Court at the behest of the petitioner-accused in Criminal Revision Application No.63 of 2022. Thus, the legality and correctness of order dated 20.06.2022, exhibiting the returned envelope as Exh.33, is subjudice. 5. The impugned order in the present writ petition says that, the petitioner is having opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and it is also observed that, no prejudice will cause to the accused because said notice was exhibited. 6. It is a well settled law that exhibiting a document is for the purpose of identification and it does not amount to proving the contents of the documents. 7. Thus, even if the case of the petitioner is considered that, the envelope was not found in a sealed condition but it was found open, the petitioner has an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on the said issue. 3 16.wp.108.23.odt 8. The order impugned therefore, cannot be said to be an adverse order against the petitioner or he cannot be treated as an aggrieved party. 9. Thus, it is apparent that, the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the petition needs to be dismissed with costs. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 11,000/- (Rs. Eleven Thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner in the account of M/s The High Court Gazetted Officers’ Association, Nagpur, within four weeks from today and shall place the receipt of the same on record. 11. Place the matter for compliance on 21.04.2025. JUDGE C.L.Dhakate