[2025:RJ-JP:46806] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No.84/2025 Vedprakash Sogarwal Son Of Late Shri Lalaram Ji, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 134-135, F-2 Jadaun Nagar First, Ma- haveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) At Present 55/216, Rajat Path, Mansarowar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Shantnu Singh Son Of Late Shri Himmat Singh, Resident Of 42 Imperial Apartment, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedprakash Sogarwal, petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. transfer petition, a chal- lenge has been led to the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur by which the transfer application submitted by the peti- tioner has been rejected. 2. The petitioner, present in person, submits that he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused-respondent in the year 2022, wherein after completion of the trial, the case was posted for final argu- ments on 10.03.2025 and thereafter, the next date was posted for arguments on 29.03.2025, 09.04.2025, 21.04.2025, 30.04.2025, 14.05.2025 and finally the final arguments were heard and con- cluded on 21.05.2025, even then the case was posted for the next [2025:RJ-JP:46806] (2 of 3) [CRLTP-84/2025] dates, i.e., 02.06.2025 for further arguments and later on again the arguments have been heard on 19.06.2025 and finally the case was posted on 09.07.2025 for pronouncement of judgment. Learned counsel submits that the judgment was not pronounced on that day also and still a seal impression was put in the order sheet on 09.07.2025, as if the case was still at the stage of recording the evidence. He submits that as per the circulars issued by this Court, no seal impression can be put in the order sheet, the Judicial Officer is supposed to draw the order sheets either in writing or by typing the same. He submits that thereafter the case was posted for 18.07.2025, 30.07.2025, 13.08.2025 and 21.08.2025, but till date the judgment has not been pronounced and again and again the case has been posted for further argu- ments. 3. The petitioner further submits that the above noted facts creates an apprehension in his mind that he will not get the jus- tice, hence, in the interest of justice, the case be transferred to some other court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ac- cused-respondent opposes the arguments raised by the petitioner and submits that when the transfer application was submitted be- fore the court of Sessions Judge, an explanation/comments were called upon from the Presiding Officer and after perusing the same, ld. Sessions Judge has rejected the transfer application submitted by the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. [2025:RJ-JP:46806] (3 of 3) [CRLTP-84/2025] 6. This fact is not in dispute that the complaint filed by the peti- tioner against the accused-respondent is lying pending before the trial Court for its adjudication since 2022. This fact is also not in dispute that the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 14.02.2025, thereafter, the case was posted for final arguments on several dates and even, an order- sheet was recorded on 19.06.2025, which reflects that the case was posted for 09.07.2025 for judgment. 7. Again, the case was posted for 18.07.2025, 30.07.2025, 13.08.2025 and 21.08.2025 for further arguments and for pro- nouncement of the judgment. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the final argu- ments have been heard, it is expected from the learned trial Judge to pronounce the judgment on the next date, but in the instant case, the case has been deferred since June, 2025, for arguments and dictation of judgment. Such an act on the part of the learned trial Judge is not appreciable. 9. It is expected from the learned trial Judge to decide the mat- ter on the next date and if not possible on the next date, by fixing a short fixed date. It is made clear that the case may not be de- ferred for some other day again for hearing the arguments and it is also expected from the learned trial Judge to pronounce the judgment on the next date. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal transfer petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/199