[2025:RJ-JP:21764] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2635/2025 Omprakash Moolani S/o Late Shri Ishwardas Mulani, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 41- Gurunanak Colony, Dholabhata Road, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus Sumit Aasnani S/o Jai Prakash Aasnani, R/o C-16, Near Stephen School, Panchseel Nagar, Ajmer, Office Address Jaideep Pharma, Shop No. 17, Royal Complex, Station Road, Ajmer. -Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aayush Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 23/05/2025 1. The instant petition is filed under section 528 of BNSS challenging the impugned order dated 04.04.2025, whereby, the petitioner's application under section 311 of Cr.P.C, for taking additional documents on record was dismissed. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act, the petitioner has clearly mentioned that the respondent Sumit Aasnani borrowed Rs.25,00,000/- and ensured the petitioner to repay the said amount within 24 months. The respondent Sumit Aasnani handed over 5 cheques to the petitioner as security. It is also contended that in examination-in-chief, the complainant (respondent) clearly stated that a written document was executed between the petitioner and the respondent, when the said amount was lent. [2025:RJ-JP:21764] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2635/2025] The petitioner could not produce the written document at the time of his examination-in-chief, though the said document is necessary for deciding the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.04.2025, dismissed the petitioner's application merely on the grounds that delay has already been caused and the matter is placed for final arguments. The Court also observed that the said document did not seem to be 8 years old. Therefore considering the above facts the order dated 04.04.2025 may be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard and perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioner in para 3 of his complaint simply stated that Rs.25,00,000/- were borrowed by the respondent and the respondent handed over 5 cheques to him as security. There is no mentioning of the fact that any such document which petitioner intends to produce was ever executed. The Trial Court also observed that the petitioner himself prayed for closing his evidence. The petitioner has moved the application after submission of written arguments by the accused. Further, the application is delayed by almost one year. 5. Therefore, considering the above facts couple with the fact that petitioner never disclosed any existence of such document in his complaint, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. 7. Pending applications if any also stand disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J [2025:RJ-JP:21764] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2635/2025] Keshav/53