[2025:RJ-JP:42301] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6611/2025 Kayamuddin Son Of Shri Salamuddin, Resident/ Office Address- Kalu Tyre Wala, Opp. Sector 07, Near Indian Petrol Pump, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner-Accused Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent 2. Hasanand Diyalani Son Of Late Shri Uattamchand, Resident Of -4/446, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent-Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Afroz Bano with Ms. Shama Aajmi for Mr. Sikander Ali Chopdar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 15/10/2025 This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in case No. 248/2015 whereby, an application filed by the accused-petitioner (for brevity, ‘the petitioner’) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No.2/complainant (for brevity, ‘the complainant’) filed a complaint under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for [2025:RJ-JP:42301] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6611/2025] short, ‘the Act 1881’) against the petitioner on 29.06.2013. Cognizance against the petitioner was taken on 20.02.2015. On 31.07.2023, the statement of the complainant as PW-1 was recorded; but, despite sufficient opportunities, since, he was not subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner, his this right was closed vide order dated 17.10.2024. On 22.08.2025, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant for cross-examination which has been dismissed vide order impugned dated 10.09.2025. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing his application inasmuch as he was not given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. She, therefore, prays that the criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 10.09.2025 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C. be allowed. Heard. Considered. While dismissing the application, the learned trial Court has held that on 31.07.2023, the cross-examination of the complainant was deferred on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, the case was fixed on almost nine occasions for the cross-examination; but, on none of the occasion, the opportunity was availed by the petitioner whereupon, vide order dated 17.10.2024, his this right was closed and the case was fixed for the statement of the petitioner. It is further observed that despite listing the case for recording his statement on as many as six occasions, the petitioner did not appear resulting into [2025:RJ-JP:42301] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6611/2025] forfeiture of his bail bonds vide order dated 09.06.2025. On his reappearance on 05.08.2025, his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the case was fixed for defence evidence whereafter, he filed the instant application. Holding that the petitioner was already afforded sufficient opportunities to cross- examine the complainant, the application has been dismissed. It is not the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid findings are perverse and he was not given the number of opportunities to cross-examine the complainant as mentioned in the order impugned dated 10.09.2025. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any force in the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/37