1 11. WP 664 of 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.664 OF 2026 MOHD. SABIR SHEIKH KALLU SHEIKH VERSUS CHITNAVISPURA SANMITRA SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT NAGPUR Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Ms. D.M. Rohankar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Chavan, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard Ms. Rohankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.06.2026, passed by learned 10th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur, below Exhibit 38, whereby the application for setting aside no cross order dated 18.04.2026, came to be rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent, who is original complainant, has filed the proceedings bearing S.C.C. No.6498 of 2020, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner, before the trial court. 2026:BHC-NAG:12265 2 11. WP 664 of 2026.odt She submits that during the course of evidence, the entire copy of the complaint has not been supplied to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was not able to conduct the cross-examination of the complainant. Even though the trial court vide its order dated 23.01.2026, quashed and set-aside the no cross order dated 21.12.2024, in absence of proper documents, the cross of the complainant could not be conducted. Hence, no cross order was passed on 18.04.2026. She submits that the valuable right of the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant was thus defeated for not granting an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. She submits that, as per direction of this Court, vide order dated 25.08.2026, the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- to show his bonafides. She submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The petitioner also undertakes to co-operate in the early disposal of the complaint with the assistance of his counsel before the trial court. Hence, she prays for granting an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant by setting aside the impugned order. 4. As against this, Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the present petition on the ground that the order of rejection of setting aside no cross order is passed after taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, who had 3 11. WP 664 of 2026.odt earlier failed to cross-examine the complainant despite granting an opportunity by the trial court vide its order dated 23.01.2026, by setting aside the no cross order dated 21.12.2024. So also, the trial court has recorded that the entire documents were supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, the reasons adopted by the petitioner for making an application for setting aside no cross order was not found favour with the trial court. Hence, the application came to be rejected by the trial court. He submits that the impugned order is, therefore, just and proper and liable to be maintained. 5. I have gone through the impugned order dated 20.06.2026. At the outset, this Court after taking into consideration the observations made by the trial court, has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/-, to show his bonafides and to compensate the respondent. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner has deposited the said amount vide cheque dated 03.09.2026. 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the reasons given by the petitioner for setting aside the no cross order is that the complainant had supplied the copies of the affidavit of evidence and certain documents, however, the copy of complaint was not supplied 4 11. WP 664 of 2026.odt to the petitioner. The said reasons were not found to be genuine by the trial court while passing the impugned order. 7. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has shown his bonafides by depositing an amount of Rs.15,000/-, to compensate the complainant and undertakes to co-operate in early disposal of the matter, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. It is to be noted that considerable time is lapsed and therefore, further direction of early disposal of the matter can also be issued. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.06.2026, passed by learned 10th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur, below Exhibit 38, is hereby quashed and set-aside. iii) The application at Exhibit 38 is allowed and no cross- order dated 18.04.2026, is hereby quashed and set-aside. The petitioner is granted permission to cross-examine the complainant. 5 11. WP 664 of 2026.odt iv) The respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,000/-, deposited by the petitioner vide Cheque No.003251, dated 03.09.2026. v) The parties are directed to remain present before the trial court on 28th September 2026. vi) The petitioner shall attend each and every date before the trial court, unless so exempted by the trial court for exceptional circumstances. vii) Since the matter is pending from the year 2020, the trial court is requested to make an endeavor to dispose of the matter expeditiously and not beyond the period of six months. viii) With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE asd