[2025:RJ-JP:38889] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3776/2024 Ramswaroop Kumawat Son Of Shri Gendilal Kumawat, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Village Rainwal Maji, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Complainant-Petitioner Versus Bhairu Ram Mali Son Of Shri Badriram Mali, Resident Of Jaichand Ka Bass, Village Harsulia, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Accused-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 20/09/2025 1. Heard counsel for both the parties on merits and perused the material placed on record. 2. Instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by petitioner- complainant to assail the interlocutory order dated 18.05.2024 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in criminal case titled as Ramswaroop Kumawat Vs. Bhairu Ram Mali, for offence under Section 138 NI Act whereby and whereunder application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., filed by respondent-accused has been allowed and few documents including the letterpad of Rotary Club Jaipur Capital and few coloured photographs, extracted from social media app-Facebook, have been taken on record. 3. It appears that petitioner-complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the respondent- [2025:RJ-JP:38889] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3776/2024] accused for dishonour of cheque for an amount of Rs.19,27,000/-. In respect of this cheque, accused-respondent, in the reply notice has taken a plea that the blank cheque in question was given to petitioner for renewal of his membership of Rotary Club Jaipur Capital for the year 2018, as complainant-petitioner happens to be the President of Rotary Club Jaipur Capital, which has been misused by complainant. 4. It appears that in respect of question, put forth in the cross examination of complainant- petitioner, the petitioner denied himself to have any connection/nexus with Rotary Club Jaipur Capital. Hence, after closure of complainant’s evidence and at the stage of statements of accused, respondent-accused filed an application to place the documents on record, showing that petitioner happens to be the President of Rotary Club Jaipur Capital and few photographs showing his nexus with the Rotary Club Jaipur Capital. These documents have been sought to be filed, to support the plea taken by accused-respondent in his defence. 5. The trial Court found that these documents are relevant to the issue involved and in order to give opportunity of defence to accused-respondent, allowed documents to be taken on record.On the letterpad of Rotary Club Jaipur Capital, name of complainant- petitioner is mentioned as President and in the coloured photographs, complainant’s presence is shown to manage the affairs of Rotary Club Jaipur Capital. However, the trial court in the order impugned has observed that admissibility of these documents shall be considered at the time of tendering these [2025:RJ-JP:38889] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3776/2024] documents in evidence, including submission of a certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act. 6. Counsel for the accused-respondent, during course of arguments states that since the defence evidence of accused- respondent is undergoing before the trial Court and he will rely on all the documents only in his defence evidence and shall not pray to recall the complainant-petitioner for his cross examination, on the basis of these documents. 7. This Court finds that the trial Court has assigned justified and valid reasons to take the documents on record and further the admissibility of documents has been left open to be considered at the time of tendering these documents in evidence. Further taking into consideration the statements of counsel for the accused- respondent, that he shall not pray to recall the complainant for his cross examination on these additional documents and since, at present, the criminal proceedings of present complaint are pending at the stage of evidence of accused-respondent, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023). 8. As a result, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. 9. The interim order dated 02.07.2024 stands vacated. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court, to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/167