UDAY CHANDRASHEKHAR BALAPURE Vs. KUBER CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent is served, and inspite of giving opportunity to appear, none appears for him. Hence, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) By the present Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 18/10/2025 passed below Exh. 38 and order dtd. 20/10/2025 passed below Exh.41 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in S.C.C.No 1204/2023 wherein the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bailable warrant was rejected by the trial Court.

(3.) The proceedings relate to Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted exemption vide order dtd. 11/3/2024, and the Court has permitted the petitioner to remain present as and when the Court directs. My attention is invited to the copy of roznama dtd. 30/8/2025, wherein an application at Exh.35 was filed by the petitioner and say was called. Next date was 19/9/2025. On 19/9/2025 the case was adjourned to 29/9/2025 for further hearing and orders on Exh.35. On 29/9/2025 again the case was adjourned to 18/10/2025 for orders on Exh.35. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even for passing orders on Exh.35, presence of the petitioner/original accused was not necessary. However, on 18/10/2025 abruptly an application was filed on behalf of the complainant for issuance of non bailable warrant, as the petitioner/ accused was absent and the trial Court has issued bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.5000.00 against the accused on the very same day.