[2025:RJ-JP:27226] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4186/2025 Puran Mal Saini Son Of Late Panchu Ram Saini, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of 57, Near Partap Jyoti School, Partap Nager, Jhotwara ,jaipur, Rajasthan-302012. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Satyaparkash Agarwal Son Of Shri Madholal Agarwal, Resident Of House No. - 9, Ajay Circle, near Punjab National Bank, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 22/07/2025 1. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10.09.2024, whereby, the petitioner's application for recalling the complainant for cross- examination was dismissed. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a fair defence and without exercising the defence, the petitioner would not be able to defend himself, therefore, in the interest of justice, the petitioner's application for recalling the complainant for cross-examination may be allowed. It is also contended that the petitioner's counsel could not mark his presence on the given date due to some bonafide reasons and even if it is presumed that the petitioner's counsel remained absent without any reasonable cause, then also in the interest of [2025:RJ-JP:27226] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4186/2025] justice, the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard and perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioner's application for recalling the complainant for cross-examination was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.09.2024, for the reasons that the petitioner's got opportunity for cross examining the complainant on 25.07.2024 and then on next date of hearing i.e. on 22.08.2024, the counsel for the accused remained absent and the complainant was present throughout the day. 5. The cross-examination of the witness is a valuable right, though it seems that learned counsel for the petitioner did not attempt to cross-examine the complainant even after getting ample opportunities, however, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. 6. Upshot to the above, the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is directed to cross-examine the complainant, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- as a costs to the complainant and if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, then the petitioner shall have no right to cross- examine, further, the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/81