HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3691/2025 Lalit Kumar Varindani S/o Shri Baldev Kumar Varindani, Aged About 47 Years, Firm Banshidhar Satyanarayan, Aged About 47 Years, Address- Swastik Hotel And Restaurant, In Front Of Pani Ki Tanki, Baraf Khant Road, Govind Marg, Jaipur. R/o C-60, Saaket Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Presiding At 153 Near Govind Dev Ji Temple Kanwar Nagar Brahmpuri Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus M/s Kabra And Company, Kha-1, Surajpol Anaj Mandi, Jaipur, Through Its Proprietor, Shri Prushotam Das Kabra, S/o Of Late Shri Lakshi Narayan Kabra, Aged About-54. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anubhav Agarwal For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act Cases) No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, by which the application submitted by the accused petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and his prayer for summoning the complainant- respondent for the purpose of cross-examination has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint submitted by (2 of 5) [CRLMP-3691/2025] the respondent-complainant, wherein when the case was posted on 21.12.2024 for the purpose of cross-examination with the complainant, his counsel was not available, he went to Bhilwara to perform necessary rituals on demise of someone in his family. Counsel submits that in-spite of above, no further opportunity was granted to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination and opportunity for cross- examination was closed. Counsel submits that these facts were brought into the notice of the Court below by way of filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., but no heed was paid and the said application has been rejected vide order dated 29.04.2025. Counsel submits that last opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of cost to the other side. 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 the respondent complainant has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in the year 2019 and the petitioner sought several dates for cross- examination in between 09.06.2022 till 26.04.2023 and more than 14-15 opportunities have been granted for the same purpose and finally a last opportunity was granted to him on 26.06.2023 on cost with the stipulation that no further opportunity would be granted, then again several opportunities were granted subject to payment of cost, but in- spite of above, the petitioner has failed to avail all the (3 of 5) [CRLMP-3691/2025] opportunities whenever granted to him for the purpose of cross-examination. 5. It appears that the sole object of the petitioner is to delay and linger on the complaint pending against him since last more than six years, hence, under these circumstances, the Court below has not committed any error in passing the order impugned. But looking to the fact that granting opportunity is the fundamental object of the criminal trial and in case, last opportunity is not granted to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination with the complainant, the petitioner would not be in a position to put his defence against the complainant in his cross-examination. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity should be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant-respondent with the following conditions: i. The petitioner would pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within a period of 15 days from today. ii. The petitioner would implant 25 saplings/plants of the shaded trees in public vicinity area before the next date and would submit proof with photographs thereof for the satisfaction of the Trial Court that the condition No.ii put by this Court has been duly complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will look after all the trees planted by him, till final disposal of the application pending against him. (4 of 5) [CRLMP-3691/2025] 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. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to comply with either of the conditions within above stipulated time, no further opportunity would be granted to him. 9. In case, the petitioner complies with the above conditions within above stipulated time, last and final opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination. 10. The Trial Court would summon the complainant for the aforesaid purpose by fixing a short date and in case, on that date, cross-examination is not completed, then by fixing a further short date. 11. In-spite of above, if the petitioner seeks time for appearance before the Trial Court, no further time would be granted to him for the aforesaid purpose and the order impugned will come into existence automatically and the trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 12. The reason for passing ex-parte order is to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint, which is pending since 2019 i.e. more than six years, in the interest of the complainant. Even if the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would (5 of 5) [CRLMP-3691/2025] be at liberty to move an application for vacation this order by way filing an appropriate application. 13. Since the complaint is lying pending since last more than six years, it is expected from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the complaint expeditiously, as early as possible. 14. 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/113