HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3902/2022 Santosh Khandelwal W/o Late Shri Shantial, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Plot No. 1, Bhura Colony, Mangodi Walo Ki Baghichi, Brahampuri, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Gopal Das Gupta S/o Shyam Bihari Gupta, R/o Plot No. 258/259, Dashara Kothi, Govind Nagar East, Amer Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Parashar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/11/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.08.2021, passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Complaint No.94/2019, by which the opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner with the complainant has been closed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Trial Court, wherein an opportunity was granted to the petitioner for cross- examining the complainant on 03.03.2021 subject to payment of cost by the petitioner to the complainant and the case was (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3902/2022] posted for 03.08.2021. Counsel submits that even when the matter came up before the Trial Court on 03.8.2021, the petitioner failed to pay the cost and one last opportunity was given to the petitioner to deposit the cost in order to cross- examine the complainant at 02.00 PM on the same day. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the direction of payment of cost and hence, the petitioner’s opportunity to cross-examine the complainant was closed. Counsel submits that for non-payment of cost, the opportunity of cross- examination cannot be closed. The petitioner has paid the cost on a subsequent date. Counsel submits that in the absence of providing an opportunity of cross-examination, the petitioner would not be in a position to put his defence, hence a last opportunity be granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act submitted by the complainant is lying pending before the Trial Court since 2019. It appears that when opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, the same were not availed by him. Therefore, under these circumstances, on 03.03.2021 cost was imposed upon the petitioner with a clear direction that in case, he fails to pay the cost to the witness/complainant, he would not be in a position to cross- examine the complainant, and his opportunity of cross- (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3902/2022] examination would be treated as closed. The aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court was not complied by the petitioner, hence the same directions were reiterated on 03.08.2021 and one final opportunity was granted to the petitioner at 02.00 PM on the same day. Again time was sought by the petitioner to grant opportunity to deposit the cost, but the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was not entertained and the order impugned has been passed, by which the opportunity of cross- examination has been closed. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the sole object of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the complaint, which is lying pending against him since 2019, that is why, for one reason or another, the opportunity of cross-examination was not availed by him. The reason was obvious to delay the disposal of the complaint, but at the same time this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that unless and until one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he would not be in a position to put his defence with the complainant. 6. In the interest of justice and in the interest of fair trial, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner subject to following conditions: “(I) The petitioner would pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within a period of 15 days from today. (II) The petitioner would plant 25 saplings/plants of the shaded trees in public vicinity area within a period of 15 days from today. He would submit the proof in this regard before the Trial Court along with an undertaking that he will take care of these plants (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3902/2022] till they grow and would submit the compliance report in this regard before the Trial Court.” 7. The reasons for passing the present order asking the petitioner to plant 25 saplings/plants is in the interest of public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees is considered as an appropriate initiative as it will provide numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community for decades and centuries. Future generations will get benefit from cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment. 8. If the aforesaid terms and conditions are complied with by the petitioner within the above stipulated time, the Trial Court would summon the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination and allow the petitioner to cross-examine him and if because of paucity of time, the cross-examination is not completed on the said day, then by fixing a next short date. 9. Even if the petitioner fails to cross-examine the complainant on the dates fixed by the Trial Court, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner and the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/195