922-WP-28-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.28 OF 2026 Pravesh Singh @ Sinh S/o. Pahalad Singh …Petitioner Versus Vandana L. Landge & Anr. …Respondents Ms. Shikha Dubey a/w. Ms. Pulkeshi Gaikwad and Ms. Kanishka Sharma i/b. Dinesh D. Tiwari & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sarang Gundajwar (through Video Conferencing) i/b. Mr. R. G. Panchal, for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for Respondent No.2-State. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Ms. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Gundajwar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Ghag, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. By this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 9th June 2025 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai, below Exhibit-24 in C.C. No.630/SS/2020. By the impugned order, the Page 1 Sonali 922-WP-28-2026.DOC application filed by the Petitioner seeking permission to cross- examine the Complainant vide Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (“NI Act”) has been rejected. 3. Perusal of the record shows that on 20th June 2024, the matter is adjourned for evidence of defence. However, a copy of the evidence affidavit filed by the accused on 20th June 2024 has been served on learned Counsel appearing for the accused on 30th June 2024. 4. It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that on 20th June 2024 itself, “No Cross Order” has been passed. However, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that no such order has been passed. 5. However, perusal of the roznama dated 20th June 2024 shows that the matter was kept for defence evidence. In any case, the impugned order was passed without considering the aspect that the evidence affidavit of the accused has been served on the Petitioner on 30th June 2024 and prior to which, on 20th June 2024, the matter had already been adjourned for the defence Page 2 Sonali 922-WP-28-2026.DOC evidence. However, there is substance in the contention raised by learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 that in the application seeking to recall the witness, no detail reasons are set out. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the said reasons are set out in the Petition. However, in the application, the reasons are set out. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by passing the following order: ORDER (a) The impugned order dated 9th June 2025 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai, below Exhibit-24 in C.C. No.630/SS/2020 is quashed and set aside, on the condition that, the Petitioner pays an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent No.1 as cost within a period of two weeks from today. Page 3 Sonali 922-WP-28-2026.DOC (b) The Petitioner is permitted to file an additional affidavit in support of application bearing Exhibit-24 filed under Section 145(2) of the NI Act seeking to recall the witness. Such additional affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks from today. (c) Learned Trial Court shall pass a fresh order on Exhibit- 24 filed in C.C. No.630/SS/2020 after granting opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 8. It is clarified that contentions on merits with respect to the said application bearing Exhibit-24 are expressly kept open. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 4 Sonali SONALI MILIND PATIL Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2026.09.11 14:18:46 +0530