[2025:RJ-JP:14781] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1830/2025 Smt. Neha Singhi W/o Gaurav Singhi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. 36, Krishna Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor 2. Babulal Dhamani S/o Radhakishan Dhamani, R/o D-119A, Bapu Nagar, Siwar Area, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 02/04/2025 : Instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf of the accused- petitioner against the impugned order dt.20.01.2025 passed by Court of ld. Special Judge, Fake Currency Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan–I, Jaipur, in Criminal Revision No.64/2024, whereby the petition filed by petitioner was dismissed and the order dt.10.10.2024 passed by Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan–I, Jaipur dismissing the application filed by petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for affording opportunity of cross-examination to the complainant, was upheld. Submissions of ld. counsel appearing for accused-petitioner are that the case was listed before ld. Trial Court on 24.06.2024 for cross-examination of the complainant but due to some unforeseen circumstances, the Advocate for the petitioner could not be appeared before the learned Trial Court, resulting thereof, ld. Trial Court closed the cross examination of the complainant, without affording sufficient [2025:RJ-JP:14781] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1830/2025] opportunity. The matter pertains to N.I. Act and, therefore, the petitioner moved an application for providing one more opportunity to cross examine the complaint but the same was dismissed by ld. Trial Court vide order dt.10.10.2024. The revisional Court vide its order dt.20.01.2025 while confirming the aforesaid order, dismissed the revision petition. Therefore, the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the ld. Courts below may be quashed & set aside and one more opportunity be granted to petitioner to cross examine the complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the submissions made herein-above & prayed for dismissal of the petition. Heard. Perused. Perusal of the aforesaid impugned orders reveals that the petitioner has been granted ample opportunities to cross-examine the complainant but for the one or another reasons known to the petitioner, he failed to cross examine the complainant. From the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the petitioner has already been afforded sufficient opportunities to cross examine the complainant. Hence, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the orders impugned, which requires no interference of this Court. Looking to the facts of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, in my considered opinion, the ld. Courts below have not committed any error in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner. No interference is called for. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. ASHOK-SAURABH