[2025:RJ-JP:4900] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7848/2024 Arun Kumar Jhiknadia, Partner M/s Dhanlaxmi Trading Company, Resident Of 3/60/3, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner/Accused Versus 1. Sriniwas Taluka, Through Sriniwas Taluka Huf, Address D- 54, Aged 76 Years, Taluka Tent House, Maharani Gayatri Devi Markets, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. …...Respondent/Complainant 2. Dhanlaxmi Trading Company, Through Partner Arun Kumar Jhiknadia, A-47, Kukerkheda, Rajdhani Mandi, Sikar Road, Jaipur. 3. Jugal Sharma, Partner M/s Dhanlaxmi Trading Company Resident Of Plot No. A-146, Murlipura Jaipur. ----Proforma/Respondent/Accused For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 04/02/2025 1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to order dated 21.09.2024, passed by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate N.I. Act Cases No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for allowing one opportunity to cross examine the complainant-witness was dismissed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed only one opportunity to cross examine the witness in the interest of justice. [2025:RJ-JP:4900] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7848/2024] 3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and also perused the averments made in the present petition and also the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 CrP.C. 4. As per the facts borne out from the pleadings and the order impugned are that a complaint was filed against the present petitioner under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act on 06.02.2019, thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the first time before the learned trial Court on 05.11.2019. The charges were read over to the accused on 25.11.2019 and the matter was posted for the evidence of the complainant and, thereafter, the evidence of complainant was recorded during the period of 07.02.2020 to 30.01.2023, but the accused petitioner did not cross examine the complainant witness and his opportunity was closed. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for statement of the accused-petitioner. 5. The petitioner then moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.07.2023 for allowing one opportunity to cross examine the complainant witness and the same was allowed vide order dated 01.02.2024 at the cost of Rs.3000/- but the petitioner neither paid the cost nor examined the complainant witness and therefore, again the cross examination of the complainant was closed on 14.02.2024. 6. The petitioner again moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and prayed to allow one opportunity to cross examine the witness. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for statement of the accused for long and the petitioner was allowed an opportunity [2025:RJ-JP:4900] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7848/2024] to give his statement on 10.07.2024 but, the accused petitioner did not appear before the Court. 7. The aforesaid facts clearly show that the accused petitioner was totally negligent towards the proceedings of the case and at one point of time, the petitioner was allowed opportunity to cross examine the complainant witness at the cost of Rs.3000/-, but the petitioner neither deposited the cost nor cross examined the complainant witness. 8. Taking into consideration the over all facts as has been narrated above, and looking to the facts that the case is pending since 2019, it would not be in the interest of justice to extend any opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the complainant witness. 9 Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /64