1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 2140/2009 Hinganghat Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Hinganghat vs. Shri Bahaddursing Attarsing Bhada. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : R.Y.Ganoo,J DATE : 25.08.2009 Mr. Anup Dhore, with Mr. Anjan De, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, who is a complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat in Criminal Case No. 3799/03, has challenged the order dated 16th February 2009 by which the accused respondent was permitted to cross-examine the complainant. This order dated 16.2.2009 is challenged in this petition. 3. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. After having understood the steps taken by the learned Magistrate as well as the respondent- accused and seeing that costs of Rs. 500/- was imposed, I am of the view that no interference is 2` required in the impugned order. The respondent can cross-examine the petitioner. This is so because costs are already deposited in the trial court. 4. In my view, no interference is required. The petition is required to be dismissed. Hence, the order. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE patle