[2025:RJ-JP:2763] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.254/2025 Manoj Pareek S/o Shri Durgabakhsh, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of D-632, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Brij Mohan Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Teelawala, Jagatpura, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Akhilesh K Pareek JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Jaipur Metro-I, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected for re- summoning the witness PW-1, for his cross-examination. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were talks of compromise between the parties and the entire cheque amount has already been paid to the complainant, hence under these circumstances, the complainant is required to be summoned for the purpose of cross-examination. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record as well as the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 indicates that the statements of the complainant PW-1 Brijmohan Sharma, were recorded on 14.10.2022 and he was [2025:RJ-JP:2763] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-254/2025] thoroughly examined by the petitioner and thereafter, the case was posted for recording the statements of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. even at present also, the stage is same as the petitioner remained absconded and his bail bonds were forfeited and he was surrendered before the Trial Court, the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the count that sufficient opportunity of examination has been availed by the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, the complainant is not required to be re-summoned for further cross-examination. In case, any talks of compromise were goint on between the parties and whether the cheque amount has been paid to the petitioner and not to the complainant, the petitioner can submit his defence evidence in this regard by producing appropriate evidence. 5. The Trial Court has not committed an error in passing the order impugned which requires any interference of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/45