High Court
Legal Reasoning
corrected-902&903IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD902 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2025M/s. Pande Iron Trading Company,Through its PartnerPankaj S/o. Trilokchand Pande,Age. 55 years, Occu. Business,R/o. Opp. Bank of Maharashtra, ChaurahaAurangabad.At presnet R/o. 50 Greens Society,Opposite Kamalnayan Bajaj Hospital,Beed Bypass, Aurangabad. ...PetitionerVersus1.Nasiruddin S/o. Mohamadali Lakhani,Age. 60 years, Occu. Business,R/o. Jwaladas Maharaj Math,Kailash Nagar, Aurangabad.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough the office ofPublic Prosecutor, High Court of BombayBench at Aurangabad....RespondentsAdvocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bhandari Anand P.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.M. BiyaniAPP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. K.K. NaikAND903 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 118 OF 2025M/s. Pande Iron Trading Company,Through its PartnerPankaj S/o. Trilokchand Pande,Age. 55 years, Occu. Business,R/o. Opp. Bank of Maharashtra, ChaurahaAurangabad.1 of 20 corrected-902&903At presnet R/o. 50 Greens Society,Opposite Kamalnayan Bajaj Hospital,Beed Bypass, Aurangabad. ...PetitionerVersus1.Nasiruddin S/o. Mohamadali Lakhani,Age. 60 years, Occu. Business,R/o. Jwaladas Maharaj Math,Kailash Nagar, Aurangabad.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough the office ofPublic Prosecutor, High Court of BombayBench at Aurangabad....RespondentsAdvocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bhandari Anand P.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.M. BiyaniAPP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S.M. GanachariCORAM :Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. Dated:05th March, 2025JUDGMENT :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent ofboth the sides, it is heard finally at the stage of admission.2.In both these petitions, the petitioner/Accused takesexception to the Judgments dated 08.01.2025 passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge-11, Aurangabad, in CriminalRevision Application Nos. 286 of 2023 and 296/2023, thereby setaside order dated 26-09-2023 passed by the learned 10th JudicialMagistrate First Class, Aurangabad, below Exh. 137 and 138 inSCC No. 3107 of 2014 and SCC No. 3108 of 2014.2 of 20
Legal Reasoning
corrected-902&9033.In both these petitions, the petitioner is the originalcomplainant and Respondent no. 1 is the accused in complaint SCCNos. 3107/2014 and 3108/2014. For the sake of brevity, parties tothe present petitions would be referred as complainant andaccused.4.The complainant filed two complaints SCC Nos. 3107/2014and 3108 of 2014 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct, (in short NI Act) alleging that, on different dates and underdifferent invoices he sold TMT steel bars worth of Rs. 32,08,653/-on credit to the Accused. In order to repayment price of TMT steelbars, the accused issued cheques described in the memo of boththe complaints, however, those cheques were returned unpaid onground that drawer of cheques stopped the payment. Therefore,independent mandatory notice u/s 138 of NI Act was issued,however, inspite of service of notice, the accused fail to complywith the same.5.After service of summons, the accused appeared inboth the complaints and his plea independently recorded in bothcomplaints. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed fortrial, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate called upon thecomplainant to prove his case by adducing evidence. Thecomplainant has filed evidence affidavit in both the complaints on07.02.2015 and undergone cross-examination conducted on behalfof the accused on 06.10.2013.6.Thereafter, on 16.11.2015, the complainant filedevidence affidavit of Complainant’s Witness No. 2 (C.W. 2) Mr.3 of 20 corrected-902&903Nitin Bangad but his cross-examination was not conducted till04.11.2017, hence, learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order on04.11.2017 and closed evidence of P.W.2 because the complainantfiled evidence clousure Pursis in both the complaints and postedsaid complaints for recording statement of the accused underSection 313 of Cr.P.C. Since, the accused was remain absent, hence,the learned Magistrate has not recorded statements of the accused.However, on 21.04.2018, the accused filed an application andprayed for setting aside order of no cross and sought permission tocross examine the complainant. On 23.01.2019, learned Magistratepassed an order and had granted applications in both complaintsby setting aside order of no cross. Inspite of said fact, the accusedfailed to cross-examine the P.W. 2 for more than 3 ½ years.Ultimately, on 16.09.2022, the learned Magistrate passed an orderand proceeded both complaints without cross examination of P. W.2 holding that, the Accused fail to cross examine said witness evenafter lapse of five years from the date of filing of evidence affidavitof P.W. 2.7.Thereafter, on 21.08.2022, the accused filed Exh. 81the application and prayed for setting aside order of no crosspassed on 16.09.2022. On 01.03.2023, the learned Magistratepassed an order below Exh. 81 in SCC No. 3107/2014 and exhibit75 in SCC No. 3108/2014 and rejected both the applicationsholding that,earliedr twice order of no cross was set aside but theaccused fail to cross-examine the C. W. 2. 8.Irrespective of above, on 21.10.2022, the accusedagain filed Exh. 82 an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., and4 of 20 corrected-902&903prayed for recall of witness P. W. 1 (complainant) and P.W. 2. On01.03.2023, learned Judicial Magistrate passed orders belowapplications under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., in both complaints andrejected said applications holding that, the accused alreadyconducted cross examination of the P. W. 1/ complainant but he failto cross-examine the CW2. The claimant filed Pursis Exh. 65 on30.12.2017 and closed his evidence.9.Being aggrieved by said order dated 01.03.2023,passed below Exh. 81 in SCC No. 3107/2014 and Exh. 75 in SCCNo. 3108/2014, the accused filed two criminal writ petitionbearing nos. 559/2023 and 560/2023 before this Court. On 28. 06.2023, this Court Coram (R.M. Joshi, J.) passed the follwingcommon order and operative part of order reads as under : ORDER“a)Petitions are allowed. All impugned ordersare hereby set aside.b)Parties are directed to appear before theTrial Court on 04th July, 2023.c)The cross-examination of both witness i.e.,witness to be cross-examined and recalled shallbe done within a period of one week from theappearance of the parties before the trial Court.d)Trial Court to permit the accused to cross-examine the complainant only to the extent ofdocument which is on record and which is not5 of 20 corrected-902&903referred in earlier cross-examination. It would beresponsibility of the trial Court to ascertain thesaid fact and to restrict the cross-examination tothis extent only.e)In case, Accused or his Counsel fail toremain present for whatsoever reason beforeCourt, it is open for the trial Court to close cross-examination as well as evidence of complainant.f)This order is passed subject to payment ofcost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten ThousandOnly) in each Petitions payable to thecomplainant on or before 04th July, 2023.Learned trial Court to ascertain fact aboutpayment of cost before proceeding with matter.g)If cost is not paid within time, this ordershall stands vacated without further reference tothe Court.h)The amount which is deposited pursuantto the order passed by this Court on 19th April,2023 be remitted to trial Court and same shallbe kept in fixed deposit, which will be subject tothe outcome of the proceedings.i)Trial Court to decide both complaintsbeing SCC No. 3107/2014 and SCC No. 3108 of2014 within period of three months from today.6 of 20 corrected-902&903It is clarified that no further extension onwhatsoever ground shall be granted for thedisposal of the matter.j)Rule made absolute in above terms.k)Parties to act upon an authenticated copyof this order.”10.Subsequent to the above order of this Court, on10.07.2023, the Complainant filed Exh. 95 Pursis stating thatevidence affidavit of P.W. 2 Exh. 52 may be discarded as he doesnot wish to examine the P. W. 2 Mr. Nitin S/o. SatyanarayanBangad, the Charter Accountant. Thereafter, on 13.08.2023, theaccused filed Exh. 116 in SCC No. 3107/2014 and Exh. 115 in SCCNo. 3108/2014 and prayed for issuance of witness summons to C.W. 2 Mr. Nitin Satyanarayan Bangad because he wanted to cross-examine the P. W. 2.11.It is the contention of the Respondent/accused that,on 28-06-2023 this Court passed the order in Criminal WritPetition No. 559 and 560/2023 and the accused was permitted tocross-examine the witness P.W. 2 in order to prove defence,therefore, it is necessary to cross examine the C.W. 2. However,the complainant filed Pursis Exh. 95 for discarding evidenceaffidavit of P.W. 2. Therefore, on 31.08.2023, the accused filed Exh.116 in SCC No. 3107/2014 and Exh. 115 in SCC No. 3108/2014and prayed for issuance of witness summons to (i) the BranchManager, Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Gopichand7 of 20 corrected-902&903Complex, Jalna Road, Aurangabad and (ii) Mr. Nikhil P.Kacheshwar, the Chartered Accountant. On 13.09.2023, learnedMagistrate passed the order below Exh. 116 in SCC No. 3107/2014and Exh. 115 in SCC No. 3108/2014 and thereby, rejected both theapplications. 12.Being aggrieved by said orders, the respondent/accused filed Criminal Revision Application No. 286 arising out oforder dated 26.09.2023 passed below exhibit 137 in SCC3107/2014 and Criminal Revision Application No. 296/2023arising out of order dated 26.09.2023 passed below exhibit 138 inSCC No. 3108/2014.13.The complainant appeared in both the revisions andfiled reply which reads as under :“2.….It is submitted that the complainant filed complainton 11/04/2014 for dishonoured of cheques issued by accused for the payment of goods supplied to accused by thecomplainant. The complainant filed his evidence affidavit on07/02/2015. Earlier advocate of accused completed his cross examination on 06/10/2015. Thereafter complainant submitted evidence affidavit of PW No.2 on 16/11/2015. But accused failed to cross examine PW No.2 till 04/11/2017. Therefore on that day no cross order came to be passed and complainant also close his evidence by passing pursis on 03/12/2017 and matter was posted for statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. but accused continuously remained absent. However on 21/04/2018 8 of 20 corrected-902&903accused filed application for setting aside no cross order, which came to be allowed on 23/01/2019. Thereafter also accused failed to cross examine PW No. 2 and therefore trialcourt again passed no cross order on 16/09/2022 i.e. after five years of filing of evidence affidavit. In view of these situation, it can not be stated that trial court is bias in rejecting the application filed by accused for setting aside nocross order or recalling of complainant for further cross examination, though High Court might have taken liberal view in this matter.3.It is further submitted that as per the order of High Court, both advocate appeared before trial court and with consent of both advocate, next dates were fixed as 06/07/2023 for cross of complainant by accused and on 10/07/2023 for cross of PW No.2. Accordingly, complainant remained present and accused cross examine the complainant and during cross examine some documents filed by the complaint came to be exhibited and therefore complainant took decision not to rely on evidence of PW No. 2 and complainant accordingly passed pursis on 10/07/2023 at 11 am only. However accused was absent on that day and therefore his advocate filed exemption application. Of-course no order is required to be passed by the Hon’ble Court on pursis but court has to take note of facts stated in the pursis and continue the further proceeding of the case as per law. Accordingly trial court noted the facts of the pursis9 of 20 corrected-902&903and fixed the next date of statement of accused u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. Though the matter was time bound by Hon’ble High Court, the trial court co-operated the accused for fixing matter after one month on 10/08/2023 as per request of advocate of accused. Inspite of the such co-operation in time bound matter by trial court, the accused is blaming the trial court unnecessary. It is submitted that advocate of accused never appeared before trial court prior to 2.30 pm on any date and therefore there is no question of filing exemption application by accused at 11 am.4.That, it is further submitted that on 10/08/2023 also on the request of the accused court adjourned the matter, though matter was time bound. After recording the statement of accused, matter was fixed on 24/08/2023 for evidence of accused, on this date only advocate of the complainant sought adjournment and court granted short time and fixed matter on 29/08/2023. On 29/08/2023 the accused produced near about 12 new documents, which accused could have produced on 24/08/2023 if he really desire to co-operate the court for disposal of the matter in time. It isdenied that accused was ready to give oral evidence on 29/08/2023 and complainant seek date. It is submittedthat on 30/08/2023, accused started his examination in chief after interval of about 3.30 pm and therefore there was no sufficient time to complete the cross examination by the complainant on that day and as 10 of 20 corrected-902&903such matter was fixed just on the next date and on nextdate complainant completed the cross examination of the accused. On the contrary on 30/08/2023 itself advocate of the complainant asked to submit list of witness to be examined by accused but the accused did not submit on that day. Even before commencing cross examination on 31/08/2023 in the morning session, advocate of complainant asked to submit list of witness to be examined by the accused, but accused did not submit the same. Therefore after interval complainant submitted written application for same and court also accordingly gave direction but accused submitted two application for issuance of witness summons after completion of the cross examination. Court immediately passed order on one application to call witnesses i.e. financial advisor Nikhil, Bank managers of Akola Urban Bank and City Union Bank. In the said application, accused himself agreed that witness summons be handover for service and he will get it served. On the application to issue of summons to CA Bangad the complainant filed his say and after hearing of the parties the Hon’ble court passed order rejecting the said application on 13/09/2023. Inspite of the rejection of the said application, the petitioner again filed another application on dated 18/09/2023 for calling CA Bangad for cross examination or as court witness. After hearing both side, the said application came to be rejected by the trial court on 26/09/2023 and therefore petitioner filed the present revision 11 of 20 corrected-902&903petition in this Hon’ble court.”14.On 08.01.2025, learned Revisional Court passedimpugned common Judgment in Criminal Revision ApplicationNos. 286/2023 and 296/2023 and set aside orders dated26.09.2023 passed by the learned trial Court below Exh. 137 inSCC No. 3107/2014 and Exh. 138 in SCC No. 3108/2014. Thelearned Revisional Court held that, “Interlocutory Order” does notdecide or touch right or liabilities of the parties. It is further heldthat, rejection of application by the learned trial Court despitedirection of this Court amounts to be deciding rights of the partiesand it is amount to denial of opportunity to the defence, hence, itis not interlocutory order. 15.Upon hearing both the sides at length, followingquestions are arises for consideration of this this Court as under :(a)Whether the order passed on an application under Section311 of Cr.P.C., can said to be interlocutory order or it is finaladjudication of rights of the parties ?(b)Whether the complainant has right to discard evidenceaffidavit of any witness, if said witness does remain unavailable forfurther examination-in-chief and cross-examination ?(c)Whether the accused has right to recall witness of thecomplaint under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., in case evidence affidavit ofsaid witness is sought to be discarded by the complainant due tonon-availability of said witness for testifying contents thereof andfor cross examination?12 of 20 corrected-902&90316.In order to ascertain the question (a), the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant canvassed invehemence that, though the complainant filed evidence affidavit ofthe CW2 the Chartered Accountant Shri Nitin Bangad, but the saidwitness was remain unavailable either for further examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Further though sufficient opportunitieswere granted to the accused for cross-examination of the CW2 butthe accused failed to cross-examine said witness even after laps of5 years from the date of filing of affidavit. Ultimately, thecomplainant filed pursis and closed the evidence.17.Thereafter, the matter was listed for recordingstatement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,however, on21.04.2018, the accused filed an application for setting aside theorder of no cross, which was granted on 23-01-2019 but again theaccused fail to cross examine the C. W. 2 Mr. Nitin Bargad forconsiderable period. Again on 16.09.2022, after lapse of five yearsfrom the date of filing of affidavit of CW2, learned trial Courtpassed an order and proceeded both complaints without cross-examination of CW2 on behalf of the accused. The petitioner/complainant filed Pursis Exh. 95 on 10.07.2023 stating that, he donot want to examine the CW2/Nitin Satyanaran Bangad and he donot want to press evidence affidavit of the CW2 filed at Exh. 52.Therefore, the accused has no right to call upon the complainant toexamine C.W. 2 and the accused has no right to cross-examine saidwitness.18.It is further canvass on behalf of the complainant that,the order passed by learned Magistrate below Exh. 137 in SCC No.13 of 20 corrected-902&9033107/2014 and Exh. 138 in SCC No. 3108/2014 are interlocutoryand no rights of parties have been adjudicated. Therefore, revisionunder Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. However, learnedSessions Court wrongly interpreted the word “Interlocutory order”and illegally consider about adjudication of right between theparties. Therefore, prayed for quashed and set aside the impugnedorder dated 08.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Nos.286/2023 and 296/2023.19.In support of this submissions, learned counselappearing for the complainant relied on Setu Raman VersusRajamanikam, 2009 AIR SCW 2066, wherein an application underSection 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C, seeking directions for production ofbank passbook, Income Tax Accounts and LDS deposit receipts ofthe appellant as also for calling him for cross-examination wasrejected by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by said order,the accused had filed Criminal Revision before the High Courtunder Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The High Court had allowed saidrevisions. Being aggrieved by said order, the complainantapproached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under thesecircumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme held that, the order passed bytrial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting theapplication under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., are interlocutory ordersand as such, the revision against those orders are clearly barredunder Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. It is further observed that, the trialCourt in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the chequewas admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the onlydefence that was raised, was that he signed cheques were lost andthat the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque.14 of 20 corrected-902&903The trial Court also recorded the findings that, the documentswere not necessary. This order did not in any manner decideanything finally. Therefore, both the orders i.e., one of theapplication under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of documentsand other on the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. forcalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature inwhich case, under Section 397 (2) revision was clearly notmaintainable.20.Per contra, Mr. Biyani, learned counsel appearing forthe respondent/accused has tried to distinguish judgment in caseof Seturaman’s (supra) and contended that, when the applicationunder Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was madeseeking direction for production of bank passbook, income taxaccount and the LDS deposit receipts of the appellant and callingfor cross-examination and if said application is rejected it wouldcertainly amount of curtailing rights of the accused for cross-examination of the witness. Therefore, the order passed underSection 311 of Cr.P.C. is amount to final adjudication of right of theparties. Therefore, the revision under section 397 of Cr.P.C. is notbarred.21.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused relied on Himanshu Sharma Versus State of MadhyaPradesh decided on 28.02.2024 and Maria Margardia SieueriaFarnandes and others Versus Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead)through L.Rs., AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1227, however, law laiddown in both cited cases so not applicable to the facts and15 of 20 corrected-902&903circumstances of the present case.22.In case in hand, it is prima facie appears that, on11.04.2014, the complainant lodged both complaints bearing nos.3107/2014 and 3108/2014. After service of summons, the accusedappeared and his plea came to be recorded long back. It furtherappears that, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit on07.02.2015 and his cross-examination has been completed on06.10.2015. Thereafter, on 16.11.2015, the complainant filedevidence affidavit of CW 2 the Chartered Accountant Mr. NitinBangad,however, the accused failed to cross examine the CW 2 till04.11.2017. It is apparent on face of record that, the accusedavailed several opportunities to conduct cross-examination of CW2but it was in vain. Therefore, ultimately, on 04.11.2017, learnedtrial Court passed an order and closed cross-examination of CW 2on behalf of the accused.23.It is also not in dispute that, the complainant has filedPursis and closed his evidence in both complaints on 03.12.2017.Therefore, both complaints were riped for recording statement ofaccused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but the accused wascontinuously remain absent. Thereafter, for the first time on21.04.2018, the accused filed an application and prayed for settingaside the order of no cross, which was allowed vide order dated23.01.2019 passed by learned Magistrate but in spite of availingseveral opportunities, the accused fail to cross-examine the CW 2even after lapse of five years from date of filing of evidenceaffidavit of CW2 i.e. dated 16.09.2022.16 of 20 corrected-902&90324.On 18.09.2023, the respondent/accused filed exhibit137 in SCC 3107/2014 and exhibit No. 138 in SCC No.3108/2014. An application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and prayedfor recall of witness CW2 the Chartered Accountant Shri NitinBangad for further cross-examination as per directions of theHon’ble High Court or call the Chartered Accountant Shri NitinBangad as Court Witnesses.25.On 26.09.2023, learned Judicial Magistrate passed anorder below exhibit 137 in SCC No. 3107/2014 and exhibit 138 inSCC No. 1308/2014 and rejected both the applications holdingthat the complainant failed to produce or made available thewitness CW2 whose evidence affidavit on record but not beenmade available for cross-examination to the accused. Therefore,evidence of C.W. 2 though available on record but it cannot read asa being evidence. Therefore, no question of examining or cross-examination of said witness arises under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.26.It is a matter of record that, in earlier round oflitigation this Court passed an order on 28.02.2023 in CriminalWrit Petition no. 559/2023 and 506/2023 and had permitted therespondent/accused to cross-examine the complainant’s witnessand scheduled of trial was fixed but the trial has not concludedtrial within the period of three months from the date of order.Therefore, on request of the learned trail court, on 21.11.2024 thisCourt passed an order and extended period of six months beinglast chance to conclude the trial.27.It is submitted that, the prosecution or the17 of 20 corrected-902&903complainant in a private complaint having right to examine asmany as witness as per list of witness to prove their case beyondthe reasonable doubt. The examination of the witnesses is astatutory right of the parties to decide controversy between theparties. However, it is the prerogative right of the complainant/prosecution to examine or not examine the particular witness,though evidence affidavit of said witness is filed.28.In the case in hand it appears that, though thecomplainant has filed evidence of CW2 the Chartered AccountantMr. Nitin Bangad, on 16.11.2015 but subsequently the complainantdecided not to rely on evidence affidavit of C. W. 2 Shri NitinBangad. Therefore, the accused has no right to cross examine saidwitness and the accused cannot compel the complainant toexamine the C. W. 2 and to cross-examine said witness. Therefore,the order passed in application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., forrecalling or summoning additional witness does not adjudicaterights of the parties. Therefore, considering the law laid down incase of Setu Raman, cited supra, the order passed belowapplication under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., is an interlocutory order,hence, revision under Section 397 (2) of Cr.p.c. is notmaintainable. Therefore, the trial Court could have dismissed therevision as not maintainable. However, learned Dvisional Courtmisconstrue the word “Interlocutory order” and wrongly heldabout maintenable of Revisions u/s 397 of Cri. P. C., against theorders passed below exhibit 137 and 138. Therefore, the impugnedorder needs to be quashed and set aside on this count alone.29. In regard to the questions (b) and (c) are concerned,18 of 20 corrected-902&903it is submitted that, no either party to any litigating cause cancompel either party to examine the particular witness to prove ordisprove their claim or defence. There is no provision either underthe Cr.P.C. or the evidence Act that in any civil or criminal litigationthe adverse party can compel assertive party to call particularperson as a witness. Sec. 137 of Evidence Act, provides forexamination of the witnesses by the party who calls the witness.Sec. 138 provides that the witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then the adverse party may cross-examined the witness andthen the party calling the witness may re-examine, if desires.However, if the examination-in-chief of the witness is recorded butpresence of witness cannot be secured due to unavoidable reasonor any reason his examination-in-chief can not be read in evidence.In case in hand, though the complainant filed evidence affidavit ofC.W. 2 but subsequently, the complainant filed pursis and prayedfor discarding evidence affidavit of C.W. 2 and he does not wish toexamine said witness, therefore, to my view, the accused cannotcompel the complainant to examine or recall of C. W. 2, whoseevidence affidavit already discarded by the trial Court. Therefore,the accused has no right to recall C. W. 2 under Section 311 ofCr.P.C..In view of above discussion, the present petitions aredeserve to be granted and impugned orders needs to be quash andset aside. Accordingly, I proposed to pass following order :ORDERi.Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 117/2025 and118/2025 are allowed.19 of 20 corrected-902&903ii.The impugned order dated 08.01.2025passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge –11, Aurangabad, in Criminal RevisionApplication Nos. 296/2023 and 286/2023 arehereby quashed and set aside.iii.The order dated 26.09.2023 passed by thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, CourtNo. 10 below exhibit 137 in SCC No. 3107/2014and below Exhibit 138 in SCC No. 3108/2014are hereby restored.iv.Learned trial Court shall proceedwith the matter expeditiously and shall decide itwithin time frame as per order dated28.06.2023 passed by this Court in CriminalWrit Petition No. 559/2023 and 563/2023 aswell as the time schedule extended by this Courtvide order dated 21.11.2024. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )SPC20 of 20