[2025:RJ-JP:49021] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7367/2025 Kartar Singh Son Of Amolak Singh, Resident Of Dhaniram Ka Pura, Village Chinaytha, Post Khedi Hevat, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Lalit Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Jagmohan Lal Gautam, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Post Sherpur, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli Raja. At Present Resident Of D -216, Jagdamba Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nav Ratan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/12/2025 1. By way of fling the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re- summoning the complainant for the purpose of cross- examination has been rejected. 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.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, wherein statements of the complainant were recorded on 30.01.2023 and the opportunity of cross-examination of the [2025:RJ-JP:49021] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7367/2025] petitioner was closed on 29.05.2023. Thereafter, the bail bonds of the petitioner were forfeited on 17.11.2023 on account of his absence before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on 13.03.2024 and was granted bail by the Trial Court. Subsequently, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 23.10.2025 for summoning the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination. Counsel submits that unless an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, the petitioner would not be in a position to put his defence. Hence a last opportunity be granted subject to payment of some cost to the complainant. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed against the petitioner before the Trial Court in the year 2021, wherein statements of the complainant were recorded on 30.01.2023. Thereafter, three opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid witness, but all the three opportunities were not availed by him. Hence, such opportunity was closed by the Trial Court on 23.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner absconded, hence his bail bonds were forfeited on 17.11.2023. He subsequently surrendered before the Trial Court on 13.03.2024 and was released on bail on the same date. Thereafter, his submissions were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for defence evidence. When defence evidence was not produced on the [2025:RJ-JP:49021] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7367/2025] date fixed by the Trial Court, again one more opportunity was granted for 30.09.2024 at the cost of Rs.500/-. At this stage, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 23.10.2025, for re-summoning the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner’s application and passing the order impugned. The sole object of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the complaint filed against him in the year 2021 and this fact is clear from the sequence of events as narrated herein above. But looking to the fact that the cross-examination is a statutory right of an accused and in absence thereof, the accused would not be in a position to put his defence to the complainant, hence in the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner subject to the following terms and conditions: “(I) The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant within a period of two weeks from today. (II) The petitioner would plant 25 saplings/plants of the shaded trees in public vicinity area within a period of two weeks from today and would submit the proof in this regard before the Trial Court along with photographs and an undertaking that he will take care of these plants in future till they grow and would submit the compliance report in this regard before the Trial Court.” 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 [2025:RJ-JP:49021] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7367/2025] 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. 7. If the aforesaid terms and conditions are complied by the petitioner within above stipulated time, the Trial Court shall grant one last and final opportunity to the petitioner by re- summoning the complainant and fixing a short date and allow the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. If because of paucity of time, the cross-examination is not completed on the said day, then the Trial Court shall fix a further short date. 8. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to avail the aforesaid opportunity on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted to him for the aforesaid purpose and the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 9. 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. 10. 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 2021. Even if, the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to file an application before this Court for recall of this order. 11. Looking to the fact that complaint is lying pending before the Trial Court since 2021 and the same has reached its fag [2025:RJ-JP:49021] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7367/2025] end, it is expected from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the same expeditiously as early as possible in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/55