Bombay High Court
PRAVESH SINGH @ SINH S/O PAHALAD SINGHversusVANDANA L LANDGE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The impugned order rejecting the application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is quashed and set aside as it was passed without proper consideration and in violation of procedural fairness.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a Metropolitan Magistrate's order dated 9 June 2025 that rejected his application to cross‑examine the complainant under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He contended that the order was passed without considering that the accused’s evidence affidavit was served after the case had been adjourned for defence evidence and that the application lacked detailed reasons. The court examined the record, noting a dispute over whether a "No Cross Order" had been issued on 20 June 2024 and that the magistrate had not entertained the petitioner’s affidavit. Finding the order procedurally defective and violative of natural justice, the court quashed it, imposed a modest cost on the petitioner, and allowed him to file a fresh affidavit within three weeks. The trial court was directed to rehear the application on Exhibit‑24, with the merits of the cross‑examination request kept open.
Issues considered
- Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate erred in rejecting the application for cross‑examination under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act without proper consideration of the accused’s evidence affidavit.
- Whether the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 145(2)
Subjects
- Section 145 NI Act
- cross-examination
- witness recall
- procedural fairness
- natural justice
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
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 20 th June 2024, the
matter is adjourned for evidence of defence. However, a copy of
the evidence affidavit filed by the accused on 20 th June 2024 has
been served on learned Counsel appearing for the accused on 30 th
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 20 th 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 20 th 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.]
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.09.11
14:18:46
+0530
Page 4
Sonali
Checking your session…