[2025:RJ-JP:48329] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7659/2025 Prateek Sharma Son Of Shri Sohan Lal Sharma, Resident Of F-203, G-17, Raghuraj Enclave, Krishna Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Pawan Kumar Pareek Son Of Shri Madan Lal Pareek, Resident Of 21, Arihant Apartment, F-1, Deepak Colony, Chak Gatore, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Devi Singh, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Case No.348/2018, by which the application submitted by the petitioner for 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, 1881 upon a complaint submitted by the complainant-respondent before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate. Counsel submits that the examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded on [2025:RJ-JP:48329] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7659/2025] 28.04.2022. In all there are two complaints filed by the complainant against the petitioner and his sister. Counsel further submits that files of both the cases were clubbed and order-sheets recorded in the file of the sister of the petitioner reflect that on several dates, the complainant failed to appear, hence she did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, there was no fault of the petitioner and on the fateful day, when the case was listed on 28.04.2022, the counsel for the petitioner failed to cross-examine the complainant and on the very same day his evidence was closed. Counsel submits that on the same day an application was submitted before Trial Court for granting last opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, but the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 14.05.2025. Counsel submits that unless and until, opportunity of cross- examination is granted to the petitioner, he would not be in a position to put his defence against the complainant. Hence, in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of suitable 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 complainant against the petitioner in the year 2017, wherein the examination-in-chief of the complainant was [2025:RJ-JP:48329] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7659/2025] recorded on 28.04.2022 and thereafter, several opportunities were granted to the petitioner, but he has failed to avail the same. Hence on 09.01.2025, the opportunity to cross- examination was closed. 5. Though the argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has failed to appear in the other criminal case filed by him against the petitioner’s sister, but this Court is not satisfied, as the order-sheets of the Trial Court pertaining to the present case indicate that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner in between, but the petitioner has failed to avail any of these opportunities. The reason was obvious that the sole objective of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the complaint submitted by the complainant against the petitioner in the year 2017. But this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that cross-examination is the statutory right of an accused. In the absence of cross-examination with the witness/complainant, the accused would not be in a position to put his defence. 6. In case, such opportunity is not granted to the petitioner, the petitioner would be deprived of the opportunity of a fair trial. 7. 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 directions: “(I) The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within a period of 15 days from today. [2025:RJ-JP:48329] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7659/2025] (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 the proof in this regard before the Trial Court along with an undertaking that he will take care of these plants in future and would submit the compliance report in this regard before the Trial Court.” 8. 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. 9. 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 for the purpose of cross-examination of the complainant by summoning the complainant before the Trial Court by fixing a short date for the aforesaid purpose. However, if due to paucity of time, the cross-examination is not completed on the said day, then by fixing a further short date. 10. Even if the petitioner fails to cross-examine the said witness on the next fixed date, 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. [2025:RJ-JP:48329] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7659/2025] 11. 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. 12. The reason for passing this 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 in the year 2017. 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 recall of this order. 13. Looking to the fact that complaint is lying pending since 2017 before the Trial Court, it is expected from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending complaint expeditiously as early as possible without entertaining any unnecessary request for adjournment made by either side. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/309