[2025:RJ-JP:2436] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 239/2025 Santosh Kumar Soni S/o Shri Ramchandra Soni, R/o Village And Post Patan, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj). Presently R/o Santosh Kumar Soni Through Shri Virendra Agrawal, Advocate, R/o House No. 308, Scheme No. 10B, Narayan Niwas, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus Amit Verma S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, R/o Village And Post Patan, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj). Presently R/o H-36, Ramnagar, Swej Farm, Near Chitransh School, New Sanganer Road, Sodala. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/01/2025 1. By way of filing of the instant misc. petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar in Criminal Complaint No.40/2018, CIS No.1229/2023, by which the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent has been entertained and on the subsequent dates, the case was posted for recording the statements of the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he has been summoned through arrest warrants. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) filed a complaint under Section 138 Cr.P.C. against [2025:RJ-JP:2436] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-239/2025] him before the court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. Counsel submits that the case was posted by the Trial Court for cross-examination of the complainant by the petitioner on 22.03.2022 but on that day, at the request of the petitioner, the case was deferred. Counsel submits that on the next date i.e. on 13.04.2023, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 142 (2) B of NI Act before the concerned court to the effect that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant as the cheque has been dishonored by the State Bank of India, Branch Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. 3. After hearing the arguments on the said application, the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, partly allowed the application and returned the complaint to the complainant to submit the same before the competent court of law having jurisdiction vide order dated 21.02.2024. Counsel submits that instead of filing the fresh complaint before the Competent Court having jurisdiction, the complainant submitted the same before the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana and the same was not maintainable but condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 5, the complaint submitted by the complainant was entertained and subsequently arrest warrants were issued against the petitioner vide order dated 04.10.2024. 4. Counsel submits that no notice was given to the petitioner about filing of the aforesaid complaint neither by the complainant nor by the Trial Court and the opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner was dodged and the case was posted for his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. [2025:RJ-JP:2436] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-239/2025] 5. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the entire proceedings have been vitiated and are liable be quashed and set aside by this Court. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that initially the complainant- respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner before the court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate, (NI Act) No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, wherein, the petitioner was served and when the case was posted for cross-examination to be done by the petitioner, the complainant sought time on 22.03.2022 and at his request, the case was posted for the next date but in the meantime, an application under Section 142 (2) B of NI Act was submitted for rejecting the complaint filed by the complainant on the pretext that the complaint was not filed before the Court having jurisdiction. 8. The aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner was partly allowed by the learned Special Magistrate vide order dated 21.02.2024 in the presence of the petitioner and the complaint filed by the complainant was returned to him for filing the same before the competent court having jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the complainant has submitted the same complaint before the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana and the same was entertained by the said court vide order dated 25.04.2024. 10. It appears that at the time of entertaining the aforesaid complaint, without issuing any notice to the petitioner straightaway arrest warrants were issued against him to procure [2025:RJ-JP:2436] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-239/2025] his presence on the next date. The petitioner was not aware about filing of the aforesaid complaint before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana. Hence, under these circumstances, there was no reason or occasion available with the Trial Court to summon the petitioner through arrest warrants. 11. When the petitioner was not aware about filing of the aforesaid complaint before the new court i.e. Special Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana, there was no reason available with the petitioner to appear and cross examine the complainant, hence, under these circumstances, his opportunity to cross- examine the complainant could not be closed and the case should not have been posted for recording the statements of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 12. In view of the above, the instant misc. petition stands disposed of and a direction is issued to the Trial Court to release the petitioner on bail subject to furnish of a personal bond and surety bond by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and post the matter on the next date and grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on the next date. It is made clear that if the cross-examination, by the petitioner could not be completed, with the complainant, on the said date, the case be further deferred for some other day and one more opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose if the petitioner fails to cross-examine the complainant on the next date or on the subsequent date. With the aforesaid observations, the instant misc. petition stands disposed of. 13. This order has been passed without issuing notice to the complainant-respondent, looking to the fact that the complaint [2025:RJ-JP:2436] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-239/2025] was filed by him way back in the year 2017 so in order to avoid further delay in disposal of the said complaint, this order has been passed. In case, the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to file appropriate application for recalling of this order. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/29