[2025:RJ-JP:40807] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.2399/2014 Arun Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Kishan Gupta, aged about 57 years, R/o 203, Agarwal Complex, Ramganj Chopad, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Jagdish Prasad Goyal S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Goyal, Prop. M/s Goyal Food Products & Flour Mills, 1/904 Near Kaushik School Dholpur Road, Subhash Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Tailor For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Sanjeev Sogarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/10/2025 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, whereby application under Sections 177, 178 & 201 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of dishonour of cheque earlier issued by the petitioner, one complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act of 1881') was filed by the complainant in the year 2006, in which cognizance was taken by the learned Court below on 02.03.2007. [2025:RJ-JP:40807] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2399/2014] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that by raising the point of lack of territorial jurisdiction, an application was moved by the petitioner/accused which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.05.2009. Against rejection of application vide order dated 20.05.2009, the petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2084/2009, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after disposal of earlier Criminal Miscellaneous Petition vide order dated 21.03.2014, again application with regard to territorial jurisdiction was pressed by the petitioner, yet the same has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order 23.04.2014 in quite mechanical manner and without examining the issues raised by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the question of territorial jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and before proceeding further, the trial Court ought to have decided the issue and without determining the jurisdiction, no order whatsoever could have been passed by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and defended the order passed by the learned Court below. 7. It has been submitted that the instant petition is nothing but abuse of process of law as earlier, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 21.03.2014 on the submissions made by the petitioner that the trial Court be directed to hear the parties and conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of [2025:RJ-JP:40807] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2399/2014] receipt of certified copy of order dated 21.03.2014 and accordingly directions to conclude the trial Court within a period of one year were issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant was ready and willing to co- operate with the trial Court, however, the accused himself was not present before the learned Court below despite specific directions issued by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2014. 9. It is also submitted that the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner in order to circumvent the earlier directions issued by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2084/2009. Hence, prayer has been made to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner. 10. Heard and considered. 11. It is a settled proposition of law that one, who approaches the Court, must come with clean hands by placing the entire facts on record. In the instant case, earlier order dated 21.03.2014 has been presented by the petitioner in such a manner as if there were directions for deciding the application earlier filed by the petitioner afresh. Specific direction to conclude the trial within a period of one year has been concealed by the petitioner in his memo of petition and the present petition has been filed with distorted, incomplete and misleading the facts. 12. I have perused earlier order dated 21.03.2014 passed by this Court in which directions were issued in quite explicit and unambiguous terms by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to the trial Court to hear the parties and to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of the [2025:RJ-JP:40807] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2399/2014] order and the parties were directed to remain present before the Court on 22.04.2014. 13. In the light of directions issued by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2014, the trial Court was supposed to proceed with the trial and, therefore, no error whatsoever has been committed by the trial Court by passing the order dated 23.04.2014. 14. It is a matter in which complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed in the year 2006, in which cognizance was taken in the year 2007 and by way of filing different petitions and the applications, the petitioner is causing hindrance in the smooth proceedings of the trial. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever and inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be extended in favour of such a person who has not come with clean hands before the Court. 15. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussions, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner, is hereby, dismissed and it is a fit case to impose exemplary cost upon the petitioner which is assessed as Rs.5,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the complainant before the trial Court. 16. So far as the question of jurisdiction, if any, is concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the same at the time of final arguments of the complaint before the trial Court. Trial Court is expected to conclude the trial expeditiously. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/34