[2025:RJ-JP:9187] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7506/2024 Prakash Chand Verma Son Of Sheri Chhoturam, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of B-69, Regaron Ka Mohalla, Hasanpura-B, Ajmer Road, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Karan Singh Shekhawat Son Of Late Sheri Hukam Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 316, Taranagar-A, Khirni Phatak Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ........Complainant-Respondent 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 03/03/2025 1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Appeal No.08/2023 (Prakash Chand Vs. Karan Singh & Anr.) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for taking the documents/additional evidence on record, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque in question with regard to which the complaint has been lodged by the complainant for initiating the criminal proceedings [2025:RJ-JP:9187] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7506/2024] against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was not actually given to him but same was given to one Roshan Lal Mundotiya, however, Roshan Lal Mundotiya by mischief, gave the said cheque to the complainant- respondent and the complaint was filed with regard to dishonour of the said cheque. Counsel further submits that there was an agreement between the parties that is with Roshan Lal Mundotiya and the said agreement is initially for the appropriate adjudication of the dispute between the parties and, therefore, same is required to be placed on record as an additional evidence. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard. 5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the impugned order. 6. The impugned order reflects that a similar kind of application has been filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court for taking the documents/additional evidence on record, and the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court. 7. Counsel for the petitioner admits the fact that the petitioner has never made any challenge to the order of rejection of the said application filed before the learned trial Court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the fact that earlier the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the order of dismissal was never challenged by the petitioner before the appropriate Forum, the rejection of subsequent application on same ground, cannot be [2025:RJ-JP:9187] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7506/2024] entertained and, therefore, the appellate Court has not committed any error in dismissing the said application. 9. Hence, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court. 10. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. 11. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /102