[2025:RJ-JP:43508] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4908/2025 1. Inderraj Suwalka S/o Ratan Lal Suwalka, Owner M/s Ecology Cleantech Corporation, A-29, Moti Nagar Vistar, Borkheda, Kota. 2. Ecology Cleantech Corporation, A-29, Moti Nagar Vistar, Borkheda Kota Through Owner Inderraj Suwalka S/o Ratan Al Suwalka. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Industrial Sales And Manufacturing Company, D-185/a, First Floor Bhrigumarg, Banipark, Jaipur- 302016 Through Deepak Bhargav, 2. Deepark Bhargav, Through Partner Industrial Sales And Manufacturing Company, D-185/a, First Floor, Bhrigumarg, Banipark, Jaipur- 302016. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Anjali Vashisht for Mr.Mohd. Abid Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, Addl.GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/10/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Case) No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-II by which the application submitted by the complainant-respondent under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been allowed he has been summoned to exhibit partnership deed, registration and authority letter of the firm of the complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid application was submitted at the stage of final arguments to delay the disposal of the complaint. Counsel submits [2025:RJ-JP:43508] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4908/2025] that the complainant had ample opportunity to exhibit the aforesaid documents, but he has failed to do so. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed ans set-aside. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been filed by the complainant against the petitioner and during pendency of the aforesaid complaint, when the statements of the complainant were recorded, the partnership deed, registration and authority letter of the firm of the complainant were not exhibited and the case proceeded to the stage of arguments. This fact came into the notice of the complainant and immediately, an application was submitted under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the complainant for the aforesaid limited purpose. 5. This Court finds no error in the order impugned because exhibiting the documents available on the record on the part of the complainant would not cause further delay. This Court finds no error in the order impugned, which requires any interference of this Court. Accordingly, instant petition stands dismissed. However, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the complaint expeditiously as early as possible without entertaining any request for adjournment by either sides. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /13