HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 265/2025 Kamal Kumar Son Of Late Shri Ishwar Chand, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of B-454, Infront Of Dana Pani Restaurant, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Ravi Wasvani Son Of Shri Mahadev Wasvani, Resident Of Plot No. 403, White House, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanraj Bhaskar For Respondent(s) : Mr. JS Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases, No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-summoning the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’) before the Trial Court and he could not cross-examine the complainant on the fateful day and accordingly, his opportunity was closed. Counsel submits that in absence of the cross-examination with the (2 of 3) [CRLMP-265/2025] complainant, the petitioner would not be in a position to put his defence in a proper way, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 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 27.11.2024 indicate that the criminal complaint is pending before the Trial Court against the petitioner since 2019 and the case was posted for the purpose of cross- examination in between and at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, the matter was deferred from 11.07.2024 till 10.09.2024 for the purpose of cross-examination, but on that day also, no cross-examination was done, hence, under these circumstances, the opportunity of the petitioner for cross-examination with the complainant was closed. This Court finds no error in the order impugned because the petitioner has delayed the disposal of the complaint, which is lying pending against him since 2019. But at the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the cross- examination is the right of an accused, wherein he can propose his defence, but in the instant case, he has been deprived of proposing his defence, therefore, it is expedient to cross-examine the complainant by the petitioner. 5. Under such circumstances, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner subject of payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant-respondent. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-265/2025] 6. In case, the petitioner pays amount to the complainant before the next date, one last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. 7. It is made clear that no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner, in case, the petitioner fails to pay the cost amount to the complainant or fails to cross-examine the complainant on the next date. 8. This order has been passed by this Court without issuing notice to the complainant to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint which is lying pending since 2019. Even if, the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move application for recall of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/54