[2025:RJ-JP:45652] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6157/2025 Mishrilal Suman Son Of Mohan Lal Suman, Resident Of House No. 1, Ramal City Colony Devpura (Near Police Station) Devpura, District Bundi (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus Bhanwar Singh Son Of Late Ram Singh, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of 2 C 29, Vikas Nagar Bundi Now K R 55, Police Line, Kota ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mayank Kumar Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.3, Kota by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Bank Manager has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act of 1881”) before the trial Court. Counsel submits that a cross-cheque was presented by the complainant before the bank, which was thereafter, entertained by the bank and the same was dishonoured with certain remarks. Counsel submits that a cross-cheque cannot be entertained by the bank, hence, under these circumstances, an application was [2025:RJ-JP:45652] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6157/2025] submitted by the petitioner for summoning the Bank Manager of the concerned Bank for the purpose of his evidence and cross- examination that under what circumstances, he passed the cross- cheque and entertained the same, but this fact was not appreciated by the trial Court and the application submitted by the petitioner has been wrongly rejected, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chhaganlal Daga Vs. M. Sanjay Shaw reported in (2003) 11 SCC 486 on 05.10.2001. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the considered opinion of this Court, summoning of the Bank Manager for the aforesaid purpose is not relevant. It appears that only with an object to delay the disposal of the complaint submitted by the complainant in the year 2017, the instant application was submitted at the stage of final arguments. It is worthy to note here that the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 24.03.2022, thereafter several dates were posted for producing the evidence till 03.06.2024, but in the meantime, no such application was submitted by the petitioner and thereafter, opportunity of defence of the petitioner was closed on 26.07.2024 and the case was [2025:RJ-JP:45652] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6157/2025] posted for final arguments and in all more than 12 opportunities were granted to the petitioner, but the sole object of the petitioner indicates that by hook and crook he wanted to delay the disposal of the complaint pending before the trial Court. 7. The judgment relied by counsel for the petitioner in the case of P. Chhaganlal (supra) is not applicable in the instant case as summoning of the Bank Manager is not at all relevant for just decision of the case. 8. This Court finds no error in the order impugned, which requires any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the instant petition stands rejected. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /26