[2025:RJ-JP:48336] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5965/2025 Harinarayan Gurjar S/o Shree Bhorilal Gurjar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 151 Gurjar Colony, Vijaysingh Pathik Nagar, Kalwad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur 302012. ----Petitioner Versus Madanlal Jangid S/o Late Shree Harsahay Jangid, Aged About 53 Years, R/o House No. 1-A Ved Villa Colony-C, Swej Farm, Sodala, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Devi Singh, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/11/2025 1. A challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 29.04.2025, 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 Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.9, Jaipur Metorpolitan-I. Counsel submits that though the case was posted for cross- examination with the complainant on 19.09.2024 and 26.11.2024, but during the proceedings, there were chances of settlement between the parties, hence the case was deferred for 26.03.2025, but the talks of compromise had [2025:RJ-JP:48336] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5965/2025] failed, hence the case was posted on 29.04.2025, but counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court for cross-examination on the said date because of the circumstances beyond his control and on the very same day, the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant was closed. Counsel submits that unless and until, an opportunity of cross-examination is granted to the petitioner, he would not be in a position to put his defence to the complainant, so last opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of cost to the complainant. 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 has been filed by the respondent-complainant against the petitioner before the Trial Court in the year 2022. Thereafter, several dates were posted for the purpose of cross-examination of the complainant by the petitioner i.e. 19.09.2024, 15.01.2024, 26.11.2024, 27.02.2025 and 29.04.2025, but on all the aforesaid dates, the petitioner had failed to avail the aforesaid opportunity. The reason was obvious that the sole object of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the complaint submitted against him by the complainant. 5. This Court finds no error in the order passed by the Trial Court. The order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper. But looking to the fact that if the petitioner is not allowed to cross-examine the complainant, he would not be in a position [2025:RJ-JP:48336] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5965/2025] to put his defence. Fair trial is a fundamental right of each and every accused and for the purpose of conducting a fair trial, opportunity of cross-examination is required to be given to the accused like the petitioner. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition with the following terms and directions: “(I) The petitioner would pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 a report in this regard along with the photographs with an undertaking that he will take care of the plants in future.” 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 conditions are complied with by the petitioner within above stipulated time, the Trial Court would summon the complainant by fixing a short date and grant an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant and because of paucity of time, if the cross- [2025:RJ-JP:48336] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5965/2025] examination is not completed on the said day, then by fixing a next short date. 9. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to avail the aforesaid opportunity, then no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner and the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner 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. 11. The reason for passing this ex-parte order without issuing notice to the complainant is to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint, which is lying pending before the Trial Court since 2022. Even if, the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to file an application before this Court for revival of this petition and for recalling this order. 12. Looking to the fact that the complaint pending before the Trial Court is at the fag end, 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 KuD/39