[2025:RJ-JP:13207] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 283/2025 Hemant Son Of Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 387, Gali No. 6, Rishi Galav Nagar Galta Gate, Delhi Byepass Jaipur, Jaipur City, Rajasthan- 302003. ----Petitioner Versus Sandeep Tanwar Son Of Shri Jagan Lal Tanwar, Resident Of Plotno. 364 Char Darwaja Bhar Khure Ke Upar, Mandi Khatikan, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh Ms. Anamika Bishnoi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 24/03/2025 1. The present criminal Misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Case No.6805/2023 titled as “Sandeep Tanwar vs. Hemant”, whereby the application filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for allowing opportunity to cross examine the complainant-witness was dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Revision Petition No.2/2025, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.07.2024 was also dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:13207] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-283/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest of justice, the petitioner may be allowed one opportunity to cross examine the complainant-witness. Counsel further submits that if the petitioner is not granted one opportunity to re- examine the complainant-witness, the whole case will be frustrated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 09.01.2025 passed in case of Aradhya Marketing Vs. Kasaka Metals (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.8475/2024. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that earlier on two occasions, opportunity to cross examine the complainant-witness was closed and on an application filed by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C., he was allowed the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant-witness twice on payment of cost. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner instead of cross-examining the complainant-witness, did not turn up on the date of hearing before the learned trial Court and his bail bonds were forfeited. Learned counsel also submits that the act and the application of the petitioner is the tactic to delay the trial proceedings. 5. Heard. 6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 7. A complaint for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed by the complainant against the petitioner in the year 2018 with regard to dishonour of check amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:13207] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-283/2025] (Rupees Four Lac). The complainant-witness was examined by the learned trial Court and when no cross-examination was done by the accused-petitioner, his opportunity to cross-examine the complainant-witness was closed on 28.09.2022. The petitioner after passing more than five months, filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 10.02.2023 for allowing him an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant-witness. The Court below vide its order dated 22.03.2023 allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and allowed him the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant-witness on the cost of Rs.500/-. The Petitioner again failed to cross-examine the complainant-witness and the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant-witness was closed on 20.09.2023. The petitioner again after passing a period of five months, moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for allowing him an opportunity to cross- examine the complainant witness and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2024 with cost of Rs.1000/- 8. It has also come on record that subsequent to that the petitioner did not turn up before the Court below and his bail bonds were forfeited vide order dated 12.09.2024. 9. The aforesaid facts clearly speak that the petitioner is playing tactics to delay the trial proceedings. The petitioner time and again was allowed opportunity to cross-examine the complainant but he failed to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Aradhya Marketing (supra), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the complainant- witness at the cost of Rs. 15,000/-. [2025:RJ-JP:13207] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-283/2025] 10. On perusal of the order passed in case of Aradhya Marketing (supra), this Court finds that the facts in the present case are totally different from the facts of that case. In that case, it does not appear that the petitioner was ever allowed the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant-witness on cost by the learned trial Court. The more peculiar fact which arose for consideration before this Court is that after closing of the opportunity of cross-examining the complainant-witness second time and after rejection of the application filed by the petitioner, he did not turn up before the learned trial Court and his bail bonds were forfeited, which clearly shows that the petitioner is playing tactics to delay the trial proceedings. 11. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no error in the order passed by the learned Court below. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 13. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /22