HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4484/2016 Mehant Mahesh Sharma Son Of Shri Pt. Ram Narayan Sharma, R/o Kale Hanuman Ji Ka Mandir, Behind Police Academy, In Front Of Jal Mahal, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan 2. Ram Gopal Saraf Son Of Shri Brij Mohan Saraf, R/o Brij Villa, D-70, Residency Road, Near Rajmahal Palace Hotel, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P.Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. N.S.Dhakar-PP Ms. Sonal Singh JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I Act Cases) No. 17, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur by which the opportunity of the accused petitioner to cross- examine with the complainant respondent has been closed. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a criminal revision petition before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metro, however the same was also rejected on 11.07.2016. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing the trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4484/2016] Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') and when the case was posted for cross-examination of the complainant, the erstwhile Advocate General had passed away. Therefore, a condolence meeting was held and due to this, counsel for the petitioner was unable to conduct the cross-examination, and on the very same day, the opportunity of cross-examination was closed. Hence, a last opportunity may be granted to the petitioner, subject to the costs to be imposed upon him. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer and submits that the complaint filed against the petitioner is lying pending for consideration since 2011. The affidavit of the complainant was submitted in the month of July, 2012 and since April, 2014 till passing of the impugned order, time was sought by the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination and in the meantime, twice he has jumped the bail and appeared before the Court below only to delay the disposal of the complaint submitted by the complainant. Hence under these circumstances, no further opportunity of cross-examination would be granted to the petitioner and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been submitted by the complainant against the petitioner before the Trial Court on 25.07.2011 and the affidavit of evidence was submitted by the complainant on 04.07.2012. Thereafter, the case was posted for one day to another and every time, further time was sought by the petitioner (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4484/2016] for the purpose of cross-examination with the complainant. The petitioner jumped his bail on 16.05.2014 and thereafter, arrest warrants were issued and he appeared before the trial Court and bail was granted to him on 16.06.2014. Thereafter, the case was posted for cross-examination on 15.05.2015, opportunity was granted to the petitioner by imposing a cost of Rs. 100/- and finally last opportunity was granted to the petitioner on 27.05.2015. Again on the next date i.e. on 17.06.2015 the petitioner jumped the bail and again arrest warrants were issued and again he appeared before the Court below and finally the case was posted for 04.01.2016 by way of last opportunity to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination with the complainant. A perusal of the impugned order dated 04.01.2016 indicates that the reason for not cross-examining the complainant, given by counsel for the petitioner was that due to the death of the erstwhile Advocate General, a condolence meeting was held and therefore he expressed his inability to cross-examine the complainant. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances which have been narrated by this Court in the aforesaid paras, the opportunity of cross-examination has been rightly closed by the trial Court. The trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order but looking to the fact that important questions of law and facts are involved in this petition and since the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. This fact cannot be overlooked that the petitioner has made all (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4484/2016] possible efforts to delay the disposal of the complaint for one reason or another including absconding twice. 7. The present petition stands disposed of with the following terms and conditions. (I) The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent-complainant within a period of 15 days from today. (II) The petitioner would plant 25 shade bearing trees in his vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and he is further directed to look after these shade bearing trees. (III) The petitioner would submit the photographs of these shade bearing trees along-with an undertaking before the trial Court to show that the Condition No.II imposed by this Court which has been duly complied with by him and he would take care of these plants till it grows and gets in proper shape and they would submit the actual photographs of these trees at the end of every three months in every year till disposal of the case. 8. The reasons for passing this present order directing the petitioner to plant 25 shade bearing trees is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4484/2016] generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh and oxygen-rich environment. 9. In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions within the above stipulated period, one last and final opportunity would be granted to the petitioner by the trial Court by fixing a short fixed date and in case, the petitioner fails to cross-examine the complainant, no further opportunity would be granted to him and the trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 10. In case, due to paucity of time, the cross-examination is not completed on the same day, then a subsequent short date may be fixed for the aforesaid purpose. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal misc. petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. 12. Before parting with this order, it is expected from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending complaint expeditiously, as early as possible, looking to the fact that the same is lying pending since 2011 i.e. for last more than 15 years. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/36