[2025:RJ-JP:43839] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6149/2025 Laxminath Infrastructure P. Ltd., Properitor Shankar Lal Sharma, Mahaveer Nagar, Gopalpura, Opposite Pooja Tower, Near Ayappa Temple, Anupam Apartment 2nd Floor, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Bhagwat Swaroop Sharma S/o Shreesatyadev Sharma, R/o Jaipur Road Bypass Tirahya, Opposite H.P. Godown, Dausa Tehsile Dause District Dausa (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, twin prayer have been made, one prayer for quashing the order dated 05.08.2025 by which an application submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-summoning the complainant-respondent No. 2 again in the witness box has been rejected and the other prayer for quashing the order impugned dated 09.09.2025 by which the defence evidence of the petitioner has been closed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been filed by the complainant- respondent No.2 against the petitioner. Counsel submits that evidence of the complainant was recorded on 12.01.2024, thereafter certain new facts came into the notice of the petitioner with regard to payment of the amount stated in the cheque to one [2025:RJ-JP:43839] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6149/2025] contractor, hence under the changed circumstances, an application was submitted for summoning the contractor but the same was rejected vide order dated 21.06.2024. Thereafter an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for re- summoning the complainant for the cross-examination with regard to new facts which came into the notice of the petitioner during the pendency of the complaint. 3. Counsel submits that re-summoning to the complainant is an essential for just decision of the case. Counsel submits that the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 05.08.2025 and the case was posted on 09.09.2025 for defence and on the very same day, his evidence was closed, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed by the complainant against the petitioner on account of dishonor of a cheque issued by the petitioner in his favour. Perusal of the record further indicates that earlier the cross examination was done with the complainant by the petitioner on 12.01.2024 thereafter statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. However, after the changed circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application for summoning the contractor-Pramod Swami, however the same was rejected on 21.06.2024, thereafter instant application under Section 311 Cr.PC. has also been submitted and the same was rejected on 05.08.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:43839] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6149/2025] 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant and the petitioner has already availed the same and subsequently his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter an application was submitted for summoning of the contractor, however the same was rejected on 21.06.2024 and this order has not been assailed by the petitioner before the Competent Court, hence the same has attained finality. Thereafter an instant application under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been submitted for re- summoning the complainant 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, for proving the defence of the petitioner, it is not necessary to re-summon the complainant again in the witness box but looking to the fact that the defence evidence of the petitioner was closed on 09.09.2025, a further opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner. 8. It is settled principle of criminal law that in a fair trial, adequate opportunities must be provided to the accused, as every accused has the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 stands quashed and set aside. 9. The Trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence on the next date of hearing subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. In case, the petitioner fails to pay the cost amount to the complainant before the next date or he seeks time to adduce the his evidence, no further opportunity would be granted to him and the order dated 09.09.2025 will come into picture automatically. [2025:RJ-JP:43839] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6149/2025] 10. With the aforesaid observations, the present misc. petition stands disposed of. 11. The reasons for passing the ex parte order without issuing notice to the complainant is to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint submitted by him against the petitioner even if the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to file an application for recalling this order by way of filing an appropriate application. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/20