Disposed

Sagar Balasaheb Kolge v. Vijay Homoeo Farmacy through Prop. Dr. Girish Vijaykumar Tathed and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2020WP/6336/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court noted that in a summons case, the complainant may tender evidence via affidavit under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It upheld the interim compensation order but directed the High Court to not interfere in the 'No-cross' order as it could be redressed by the trial court. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Interim compensation order sustained. Petitioner permitted to apply to trial court to set aside 'No-cross' order.

Sagar Balasaheb Kolge Vs Vijay Homoeo Farmacy through Prop… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

(31)WPNo.63362019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6336 OF 2019

¶5

Sagar Balasaheb Kolge ...Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Homoeo Farmacy Through
Prop. Dr.Girish Vijkumar Tathed & Anr....Respondents

¶6

Mr.Sumant Deshpande h/f. Mr.Prateek Sabde, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

¶9

DATED : 15th JANUARY 2020.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 Heard.

¶12

2The challenge in this petition is to the Orders as
Annexures A, B and C. Vide Order at Annexure A, the learned trial
Magistrate has rejected request of the accused to the effect that
the complainant be directed to enter into the witness box for
recording his examination-in-chief. By Order at Annexure B, the
learned trail Magistrate had recorded “No-cross” Order by

¶13

Gaikwad RD

¶14

(31)WPNo.63362019.doc

¶15

observing that the accused failed to remain present for cross-
examination of the complainant. Vide Order at Annexure C passed
below Exhibit 20, the learned trial Magistrate has directed the
accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount towards interim
compensation to the complainant

¶16

3The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that as
the case is being tried as summons case, it is necessary for the
complainant to enter into the witness box to adduce evidence. He
placed reliance on the provisions of Section 143 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. The contentions so advanced are devoid of
merit because, there is no question of recalling the witness.
Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides for
tendering evidence of the complainant on affidavit.

¶17

4So far as the Order passed below Exhibit 20 directing
20% amount of the cheque as interim compensation is concerned,
the said Order is perfectly correct and in tune with the Judgment
of the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Surinder Deswal
Versus Virender Gandhi.1

¶18

5True it is that the learned Court had proceeded further
by recording ‘No-cross’ Order as the petitioner/accused failed to
appear for cross-examination. But grievance for the said Order
can be redressed by the learned trial Court itself. For that purpose,

¶19

1 2019 Cri.L.J. 3507.

¶20

2/3

¶21

Gaikwad RD

¶22

(31)WPNo.63362019.doc

¶23

the petitioner/accused is permitted to apply to the learned trial
Magistrate for setting aside ‘No-cross’ Order and if such
application is filed, then the learned trail Magistrate is directed to
consider the same sympathetically keeping in mind all just
exceptions.

¶24

6With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶25

3/3

¶26

Gaikwad RD

Sagar Balasaheb Kolge v. Vijay Homoeo Farmacy through Prop. Dr. Girish Vijaykumar Tathed and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Balasaheb Kolge v. Vijay Homoeo Farmacy through Prop. Dr. Girish Vijaykumar Tathed and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Luthra Water Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S. New Kumar Transport Corporation and Anr.

Runwal Constructions and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Runwal Consturctions and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Shashikant P. Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Zubin Harbin Jhaveri and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

N. D. Raghavan and Anr. Vs Aishwariya Sharanyan and Anr.