[2025:RJ-JP:27902] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3930/2025 Surendra Singh S/o Shri Surat Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 142, E/a Type-2, Stander Railway Quarter, Near G.r.p. Police Station, Sawai Madhopur, Police Station Matown, Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar Bansal S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Bansal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Bal Mandir Colony, Bajaria, Sawai Madhopur Police Station Mantown, Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Chandra Pachori For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 25/07/2025 The present petition is filed assailing the order dated 04.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial Court has committed error by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on 25.09.2024 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Having heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and upon perusal of the order dated, taking note of the fact that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order in a speaking manner after due application of mind; that the onus is casted upon the accused qua the details; that the application is filed in a vague manner without stating grounds for calling/re-calling of the evidences; that proceedings under Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 has to be adjudicated in an expeditious manner, preferably within a period of six [2025:RJ-JP:27902] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3930/2025] months. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.03.2025 is reproduced herein below: - “lquk x;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA lkFk gh lacaf/kr fof/k dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k orZeku esa lk{; izfrj{kk dh LVst ij yfEcr gS ,oa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ifjoknh dh bude VSDl vkSj [kkrs dh fMVsy eaxokus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA mDr izdj.k psd vuknj.k ls lacaf/kr gS ftlesa pSd ij vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj gksus ,oa ifjoknh ,oa vfHk;qDr ds e/; leO;ogkj ds vUrxZr mDr pSd vfHk;qDr }kjk ifjoknh dks ugha fn;k x;k gks] dks vfHk;qDr }kjk Lo;a viuh lk{; ls lkfcr djuk gS] vfHk;qDr us ifjoknh dh dSisflVh dks dgha pSysat ugha fd;k gS rFkk mlds }kjk mDr okafNr fjVuZ dks izkIr djus ds laca/k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh x;h gks] ,sls dksbZ rF; i=koyh ij ekStwn ugha gS ,oa uk gh bl laca/k esa izkFkZuk i= esa dksbZ rF; mYysf[kr fd;s x;s gSaA ftl ij dsoyek= izfrj{kk lk{; ds laxzg.k ds fy, ifjoknh dh bude VSDl fjVZu o cSad fMVsy eaxok;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS] D;ksafd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr viuh lE;d izfrj{kk ftjg esa bl izdze ij fjVZu] Qkby djuk ,oa ugha djuk Hkh Li"V ugha gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 91 lhvkjihlh ,rr~}kjk vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA” Taking note of the aforementioned, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/72