[2025:RJ-JP:4166] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7320/2024 M/s J.S. Fashion, Through Proprietor, Mrs. Shailee Kankarwal W/o Mr. Jitendra Kankarwal, R/o Plot No. 4, Shreeji Nagar, Near Krishi Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur 302018 ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent 2. M/s B.S. Faishan, Proprietor Gourav Gupta, R/o 114/1 Ramtirth Marg, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh for Mr. Ravi Todwal for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 30/01/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Case No.1140/2022, whereby, the application filed by the accused-petitioner for recalling the complainant witness for cross-examination was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is not allowed to cross-examine the complainant witness, his whole case will be frustrated. He further submits that the petitioner has right to cross-examine the complainant witness. [2025:RJ-JP:4166] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7320/2024] He also submits that because of mistakes of a lawyer, a person cannot be made to suffer. 3. In the present case, the accused-petitioner has changed his lawyer and thereafter, he came to know that earlier lawyer has failed to cross-examine the complainant witness on certain issues as averred in the application filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer made by the accused-petitioner and submits that the petitioner was allowed ample opportunity to cross-examine the complainant witness but when he has failed to do so and the matter came up for final hearing, he has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. so as to delay the proceedings. 5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the impugned FIR and the averments made in the application as well as reply to the application. 6. On going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the evidence of the complainant witness was completed on 05.05.2023 and after opportunity being provided to the accused- petitioner to cross-examine the complainant witness, the lawyer of the petitioner cross-examined the complainant witness on 14.09.2023 and the complainant evidence was closed and the matter was posted for recording the statements of the accused- petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was listed for statements of the accused-petitioner on four dates however, the accused-petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court for which his bail bonds were also forfeited and ultimately the accused-petitioner surrendered himself before the trial Court on 15.02.2024 and the matter was posted again for recording of his statements. [2025:RJ-JP:4166] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7320/2024] 7. The accused-petitioner was provided ample opportunity and has also cross-examined the complainant witness, there is no convincing ground to recall the complainant witness again when the matter is posted for final arguments. The delay in application for recalling the complainant witness also speaks about intention of the accused-petitioner to delay the proceedings. Hence, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /13