HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4499/2024 Dushyant Agrotech, Through Proprietor Dushyant Singh Sisodiya Son Of Shri Jhandel Singh, Resident Of 5/206, Near Balaji Bed College, Rangbadi, Kota Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Chandraprakash Sharma Son Of Shri Chhaganlal Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Tel Factory, Baran, District Baran. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/12/2025 1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran by which the application submitted by the petitioner for re-summoning the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination has been rejected. 2. Contents of the petition indicates that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. During the course of the trial, statements of the complainant were recorded and thereafter, the complainant was cross-examined by the petitioner. After closing the evidence of the complainant, again application was submitted by the petitioner for re-summoning the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination. However, the (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4499/2024] the said application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 13.09.2023. 3. Contents of the record as well as the order dated 13.09.2023 indicates that after recording the statements of the complainant on three different dates i.e. 06.08.2022, 02.09.2022 and 23.09.2022, a detailed cross-examination was done with the complainant and thereafter his cross-examination was closed on 23.09.2022. Subsequently, again another application was submitted by the petitioner on 02.01.2023 for re-summoning the aforesaid complainant for the purpose of cross-examination and no reasons has been assigned as to why such application was submitted when already on three different dates, a detailed cross- examination has already been done. 4. It appears that the only motive of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the complaint which is lying pending against the petitioner since 2018. 5. This Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below, which requires any interference of this Court and accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition stand dismissed. 6. Looking to the fact that the case is pending before the trial Court for last more than seven years, it is expected from the trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the complaint expeditiously, as early as possible. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/1