[2025:RJ-JP:764] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 34/2025 Sanwarmal Goyal S/o Lt. Shri Jugal Kishore Goyal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 3/203, Shivam Appartment, Sector-3, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur 324004. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Public Prosecutor. 2. M/s Jaipur Centre Developers Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office 402-A, Plot No. 21, Panchratna, Opera House, Mumbi 400004. And Corporate Office At Tonk Road, And B-2 Bypass Junction, Sector B-4, Airport, Jaipur Through Authorized Representative Shri Gyan Chand Pokharna. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/01/2025 1. By way of filing of the instant misc. petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Special Court, Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 233 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Directors of the respondent-company has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the summoning of the Directors of respondent-company is essential for the just decision of the case and that is why the application was submitted but the Trial Court has rejected the same without assigning any cogent [2025:RJ-JP:764] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-34/2025] reasons, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that on earlier occasion also similar application with regard to summoning of same directors of the respondent-company was submitted by the petitioner on 16.03.2024 and the said application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 05.08.2024. Again, the successive application has been submitted by the petitioner with the similar prayer, which has been rejected on this account alone that successive application with regard to the same prayer cannot be entertained. 5. Once the application with regard to the similar prayer was rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 05.08.2024 and the said order was not assailed by the petitioner and the same has attained finality. Therefore, there was no reason and occasion available with the petitioner to file the successive application with regard to the same prayer, hence, under these circumstances, the learned Trial Judge has not committed any error while passing the order impugned which requires no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the stay application as well as all pending application(s) stands rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/23