1 911.APL.1641.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1641 OF 2024 Abhaysingh S/o Shivpalsingh Bais .Vs. Bhushan S/o Ramesh Kandarkar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. T.S. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Kunal Pandey, Advocate for non-applicant. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATED : 21/03/2025 1. Heard. 2. The order dated 24.07.2023, rejecting the application (Exh. 108) moved by the applicant to permit him to deposit Rs.500/- and to cross-examine the non- applicant, came to be rejected, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present matter. 3. The learned trial Court observed in paragraph-3 that numerous opportunities provided by the Court from 2016 to 2021 i.e. for almost five years. The Court observed the various dates giving opportunities to the applicant for the cross-examination. The learned trial Court further observed in paragraph 4 that despite repeated opportunities and numerous chances, he failed to cross- examine the complainant. Accordingly, the application was rejected. 2025:BHC-NAG:2902 2 911.APL.1641.24.odt 4. It is an admitted fact that the learned Magistrate on 29.07.2019, allowed the application of the applicant for adjournment subject to costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the applicant before next date. This order was not complied with, for years together. The trial Court observed that if the application Exh.108 is allowed, a serious prejudice will be caused to the complainant. 5. Thus, considering the fact that the complaint filed by the complainant is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and it is pending since 2015 and for years together, the applicant did not take any steps to cross- examine the complainant, I find the observations made by the learned trial Court that if such request is allowed, it will cause great prejudice to the complainant, is just and proper. Hence, as no ground is made out by the applicant for interference, the application is rejected. JUDGE C.L.Dhakate