HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6412/2025 Firm Krishnam Associates, At T-344, Navjeevan Plaza, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Satyanarayan Tepan S/o Late Shri Babulal Tepan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Piblic Prosecutor 2. Mohammad Shahid S/o Shri Mohammad Saeed, R/o Makan No. 5040, Samriyo Ka Chok, Purani Anaaj Mandi, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Singh Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan-II by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recording his evidence has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that through power of attorney, the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused respondent, wherein, charges were framed against him in the year 2019. However, the respondent absconded and subsequently his bail bonds were forfeited and arrest warrants (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6412/2025] were issued on 29.09.2022. Thereafter, he appeared before the Court below on 11.12.2023 and was released on bail. Counsel submits that on account of illness, the petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court, hence, his evidence was closed. Thereafter, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for granting him an opportunity for recording his evidence, but the said application has been rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the complaint was filed in the year 2016 and the instant complaint was marked as targeted file, hence, application was not entertained and the same was rejected. Counsel submits that since important right of the petitioner is involved in the matter, hence, in the interest of justice, last and final opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of cost to the accused. 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 NI Act was submitted by the petitioner before the Court below in the year 2016. As per the facts stated by the counsel for the petitioner, charges were framed against the accused in the year 2019 and thereafter, the case was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner. Subsequently, the accused absconded and his bail bonds were forfeited and arrest warrants were issued against him on 29.09.2022 and he remained absconded for one and half year i.e. till 11.12.2023. (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6412/2025] 5. This Court finds that the instant case is a case of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner that in-spite of framing of charge, more than six years back, the petitioner did not bother to appear in the witness-box for the purpose of recording his evidence. Several dates were posted in the between, but the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunities granted to him for recording his evidence, hence under these circumstances, this Court finds no error in the order passed by the Court below. But looking to the fact that the matter pertains to dishonour of cheque and the fact that the complaint has been submitted by the petitioner, this Court deems it just and proper to grant one last and final opportunity to the petitioner with the following terms and conditions: i. The petitioner would pay a cost of Rs.15,000/- to the accused. 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. 6. 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 (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6412/2025] for decades and centuries. Future generations will get benefit from cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment. 7. It is made clear that the aforesaid exercise would be done by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner fails to comply either of the conditions or both conditions, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner. 8. In case, the petitioner complies with the above stated conditions imposed by this Court within the above stipulated time, a last and final opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the purpose of recording his evidence by the Trial Court by fixing a short date. If because of paucity of time, his evidence is not recorded or cross-examination is not completed by the accused on the said day, the Trial Court would fix a further short date. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10. Before parting with this order, a further direction is issued to the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending complaint expeditiously after affording due opportunity of hearing to the other side expeditiously as early as possible, looking to the fact that the complaint is lying pending since 2016 i.e. since last more than 09 years. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/46