HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6612/2025 Krishna Kumar S/o Shri Ramkumar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 74-A Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Manoj Soni S/o Shri Durgaprasad Soni, R/o Plot No. 228, Gayatri Nagar-A, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act Cases) No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, by which opportunity of the petitioner to cross- examine the complainant has been closed. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 28.10.2024 by treating the same as not maintainable against the interlocutory order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was submitted by the complainant against the petitioner before the Trial Court in the year 2018 and the statement of the complainant-respondent was recorded on 29.08.2022, (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6612/2025] thereafter, there were talks of settlement between the parties, hence, the petitioner did not cross-examine the complainant- respondent. Counsel submits that on 16.01.2024, one final opportunity was granted to the petitioner along-with imposition of cost of Rs.1,000/-, but the same was not availed, hence, opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner has been closed vide impugned order dated 16.07.2024. Counsel submits that in absence of cross-examination with the complainant-respondent, it would not be possible for the petitioner to put and refer his defence. Hence, last opportunity be granted to him for the aforesaid purpose subject to payment of cost to the complainant. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was submitted by the complainant against the petitioner way back in the year 2018, wherein cognizance was taken on 21.12.2018 and summons were issued against the petitioner. After appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court, the case was posted for recording the statement of the complainant and the same was recorded on 29.08.2022. More than two years were taken by the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination. Whenever the case was posted before the Trial Court, it appears that the sole object of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the complaint, that is why for around two years, no steps were taken by the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6612/2025] 6. This Court finds no error in the order as the petitioner has failed to avail all available opportunities in-spite of imposition of cost upon the petitioner. However, this Court cannot lose sight that in criminal trial, a fair opportunity is required to be given to an accused, so that he can put his defence against the allegations of the complainant in his cross-examination. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity should be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant with the following conditions: i. The petitioner would pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant before the next date. ii. The petitioner would implant 25 saplings/plants of shady trees in the public vicinity area before the next date and would submit proof with photographs thereof for the satisfaction of the Trial Court that the condition No.ii put by this Court has been duly complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will look after all the trees planted by him, till final disposal of the application pending against him. 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 and oxygen-rich environment. (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6612/2025] 9. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to comply either of the conditions, no further opportunity would be granted. 10. If the Trial Court deems it just and proper that due to paucity of time, the cross-examination could not be completed with the complainant on the next date, then a short date be fixed for the aforesaid purpose. 11. In case, the petitioner fails to cross-examine the complainant on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted to him and the order dated 16.07.2024 will come into picture automatically and the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 12. Needless to observe that all possible endeavours would be made by the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the compliant, as the complaint is lying pending for its adjudication since 2018. The reason for passing this ex-parte order without issuing notice to the complainant is to avoid further delay of disposal of the complaint, which is lying pending before the Trial Court since 2018. 13. Even if, the complainant feels aggrieved by the order, he would be at liberty to approach this Court for vacation of this order by way of filing appropriate application. 14. 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. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/28