[2025:RJ-JP:9698] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 8113/2024 Moti Ram Chopra Son of Shri Naru Ram Chopra, Resident of Plot No. 47, Karni Nagar, Vivek Vihar, Gandhi Path West, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Harinarayan Yadav Son of Shri Kanaram Yadav, Resident of Maharshi Ashram, Hathoj Mod, Village Sirsi, Tehsil and District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chandra Pareek For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 05/03/2025 1. This misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to order dated 18.08.2023, passed by the Court of learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate in (NI Act Cases) No.6, Jaipur, Metropolitan-II in Criminal Case No.230/2018 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional District & Session Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Revision Petition No.46/23 (CIS No.631/23) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.08.2023, was dismissed and the order dated 18.08.2023 upheld. 2. Heard. [2025:RJ-JP:9698] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8113/2024] 3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned order as well as the other material made available on record. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent against the accused-petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act in the year 2017 as regards the dishonour of cheque bearing Nos. 674406 of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Branch Nursery Circle Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur of amount of rupees eight (8) lacs. The evidence of complaint was recorded and completed on 01.11.2021. During course of argument it has also come out that the accused-petitioner was not appearing before the trial Court on the dates fixed for proceedings and ultimately his bail bonds were forfeited, which clearly speaks about the conduct of the petitioner and his ill-intention of delaying the proceedings. 5. When the case was posted for recording of the statement of the accused, the accused-petitioner submitted an application on 11.08.2023 that is after a period of about two years from the date of completion of the complainant evidence. Though, convincing explanation has been given by the petitioner for delay in submitting the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of taking on record the certain documents and for re-examination of the complainant-witness. 6. The complaint is pending since 2017 and filing an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. after a lapse of a period of about two years for call for some documents on record and to re-examine the complainant-witness, seems to be an effort made by the accused-petitioner for delay in the proceedings. [2025:RJ-JP:9698] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8113/2024] 7. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the case is posted for pronouncement of final judgment on today i.e. 05.03.2025 before the Court below as stated by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Court below. 8. Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed. 9. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /77