HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 103/2025 Lokesh Chanchalni Son Of Shri Chiman Kumar Chanchlani, Resident Of A-194-A, Nehru Nagar, Panipech, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus G Pharma, Through Proprietor Manish Agarwal, Resident Of Firm F-30, First Floor, Mayur Tower Complex, Nehru Bazaar,chora Rasta, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Mishra Mr. Girish Bhabhra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Chodhary-GA cum AAG Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act cases) No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan-II by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the complainant for the limited purpose of cross-examining him with regard to the receipts and vouchers, has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act before the trial Court, wherein after recording the evidence of the complainant, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the documents pertaining to the sale of articles, vouchers, and receipts. Counsel submits that the (2 of 4) [CRLMP-103/2025] said application was partly allowed by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 16.10.2023. Thereafter, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioner for summoning the complainant for the limited purpose of cross-examining with regard to the vouchers and receipts but the sad application has been rejected by the Court below vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024. Counsel submits that the documents are relevant for just decision of the case, hence the cross-examination with the complainant is also essential, therefore last opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of cost to the complainant. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act has been filed by the complainant against the petitioner in the year 2019 wherein the statements of the complainant were recorded and subsequently, an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioner for placing certain documents on record. The application so submitted by the petitioner was partly allowed and the complainant was directed to submit the vouchers and reciept on record of the trial Court. It is worthy to mention here that inspite of passing more than thirty months thereafter no application was submitted by the petitioner for re-summoning the complainant for the aforesaid purpose. In the meantime, the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for final arguments. It appears that the reasons for filing a delayed application by the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the (3 of 4) [CRLMP-103/2025] complaint submitted by the complainant but this fact cannot be lost sight of that once an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the complainant has been directed to submit the vouchers and receipts pertaining to the sold articles then a last opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to put his defence with the complainant by way of cross-examination because fair trial is the fundamental right of an accused and the cross-examination of the complainant is the only tool to reveal the truth. 5. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition with the following conditions:- (I) The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant before the next date. (II) The petitioner would plant 25 shady plants in their vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of two weeks from today and he is further directed to look after these plants. (III) The petitioner would submit the photographs of these plants before the trial court to show that the condition No.II imposed by this Court has been duly complied by him. 6. The reasons for passing this present order directing the petitioner to plant 25 plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh and oxygen-rich environment. (4 of 4) [CRLMP-103/2025] 7. It is made clear that if both conditions are complied with by the petitioner within the above stipulated time, the trial Court would re-summon the complainant for the limited purpose of cross examination by fixing a short date and allow the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant to the limited extent of questions with regard to the vouchers and receipts of sold articles. If the cross examination is not completed due to paucity of time, then a short date shall be fixed. It is made clear that in case, he fails to cross-examine the complainant on the said date, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose and the trial Court would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 8. The reasons for this ex parte order without issuing any notice to the complainant is to avoid delay in disposal of the complaint which is lying pending before the trial Court since 2019. Even if the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of this petition and for recalling of this order. 9. Looking to the fact that the complaint is pending before the trial Court since 2019 and the matter has reached to its final stage, it is expected from the trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the complaint expeditiously as early as possible. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal misc. petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/254