[2025:RJ-JP:44321] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6613/2025 Kuldeep Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bhim Singh Rathore, M/s Smart Home, Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory R/o S-29, Kumawat Colony, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Kumar Verma S/o Shri H.c. Verma, R/o S-2, Kumawat Colony, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Case No.14989/2020 by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the receipts of payment of amount has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act of 1881”) has been submitted by the complainant against the petitioner before the trial court and during pendency of the aforesaid complaint, when the statement of complainant was recorded in his cross-examination, he admitted that whenever any amount was received by him from the petitioner, a receipt was issued. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, [2025:RJ-JP:44321] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6613/2025] the aforesaid documents/receipts are relevant that is why the application was filed for summoning the aforesaid, but the application has been rejected, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 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 Act of 1881 has been submitted by the complainant against the petitioner on account of dis-honor of cheque issued by the petitioner, on the ground of funds insufficient for which he is facing trial before the trial court. 5. An application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been submitted by the petitioner for summoning the receipts with regard to the payment received by the complainant. The case of the complainant before the trial court is that he is not in a possession of such receipts. Considering the above stated facts, the trial court has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner by granting liberty to the petitioner that he would raise all his available defence at appropriate stage of the trial court and, accordingly, the application was rejected. 6. This Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the trial court, which warrants any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/44