1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.35/2010 Applicant :- Mulla Jainuddin Fakhruddin, Accused aged about 62 years, Lalganj Main Road, Nagpur P.W. Lakadganj. ...Versus... Opponents :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station, Lakadganj, Nagpur. 2. Central Urban Credit Co-operative Society, Nagpur, having its office at Bapunagar, Nagpur, through alleged power of Attorney - Sudhakar Bapurao Tembhe, Nagpur. ........................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................ [Shri B.N. Mohta, Adv. for applicant] [Shri Y.B. Mandpe, APP for respdt. No.1] [Shri R.M. Patwardhan, Adv. for respdt. No.2] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 25.03.2010 1. This is an application with omnibus prayers in respect of the orders under challenge right from the order of issuance of process dated 14.12.2006 and thereafter. 2. The principal challenge to my mind having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties is that the order of issuance of process that was made by the trial Court on 14.12.2006 was made without recording verification statement and the Division Bench of this Court has held that the provision regarding verification statement before issuance of process is mandatory. The amount under cheque is only 2 Rs.25,000/-. 3. It is not in dispute that after the issuance of process in 2006 by the impugned order the trial proceeded and the complainant and witnesses were examined and cross- examined. Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded and thus, in my opinion, the trial is almost at its end. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that before statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, request for re-examination was made during recording of evidence, which was granted and that order is also under challenge in the present application. 5. In my opinion, whether or not the verification statement was recorded would become irrelevant in view of the fact that the complainant and his witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the accused. Merely because the provision has been held to be mandatory by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court cannot ignore the fact that object of recording verification statement is to find out whether prima facie case was made out or not. Here is the case where the complainant himself was examined before the trial Court and he was also cross-examined by the accused and therefore, if at all the applicant wanted to put the order of process under challenge, that ought to have been challenged at the appropriate time and not at the fag end of the trial. In my opinion, therefore, the said Division Bench judgment of this Court has no application in the peculiar facts of the present case. In so far as other orders, which are under challenge in the present application are concerned, in my opinion, the applicant cannot be allowed to put to challenge the orders which were passed about a year back that too by making such omnibus prayers in the present application. 3 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 informed this Court that now the applicant has applied for transfer of his case from Sessions Court to some other Court. Be that as it may, I do not propose to entertain the present application in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE ssw