Mangesh S. Patil, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. In this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner who is the original informant at whose instance the crime was registered and the prosecution and trial has proceeded against accused No. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under section 304-B, 306, 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is impugning the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge8, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 346/2013 dated 15.10.2018 on the application (Exh.84) filed by the prosecution, rejecting the application seeking to restrict the cross-examination of Prosecution Witnesses only to the extent of suicide note which was subsequently brought on record by the prosecution.

4. The respondents/accused had preferred application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the petitioner who was examined as a Prosecution Witness No. 2 for further cross-examination. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had rejected the application and one of the accused had preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 1231/2018 before this Court. By the order dated 11.09.2018 this Court had quashed and set aside the order of the learned Trial Judge and had directed the Prosecution Witness No. 2 to be recalled for further cross-examination. It appears that when the petitioner/ Prosecution Witness No. 2 entered into the witness box, an attempt was allegedly made on behalf of the respondents/accused to cross-examine him on all aspects, over and above the suicide note. Since they were only permitted to cross-examine the witness touching the suicide note, any such attempt by the defence was inadmissible. Therefore an application (Exh.84) was filed by the prosecutor bringing to the notice of the learned Trial Judge all these facts and solicited direction to the defence to restrict the cross-examination to the suicide note. After hearing both the sides by the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application. Hence this writ petition.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that though this Court had permitted and directed recalling of the witness, in the reasoning part it was abundantly clear that it is only because the suicide note was produced subsequently that this Court had granted permission to recall the Prosecution Witness No. 2 for further cross-examination. It was therefore illegal on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to allow the respondents/accused to cross-examine Prosecution Witness No. 2 generally without restricting it to the suicide note. Every attempt was being made by the respondents/ accused to fill-up the lacuna which was not permissible and was not contemplated by the order passed by this Court. The order being manifestly erroneous, may be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned APP submits that though the prosecutor had filed the application (Exh.84) the State has not sought any exception to the order.

7. Learned advocate for the respondents/accused submits that since after passing of the impugned order the trial has progressed. Cross-examination of not only Prosecution Witness No. 2 has been completed but even rest of the witnesses have been examined and cross-examined and the trial is now posted for final arguments. This being the fact situation, the Writ Petition has become infructuous and may be rejected on this sole ground.

8. The learned advocate for respondents/accused would further submit that even otherwise this Court had not restricted the cross-examination only to the aspect of suicide note while allowing the Writ Petition No. 1231/2018. No fault can be found with the impugned order refusing to restrict the cross-examination to that respect only. Therefore the Writ Petition even on merits is liable to be