HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8236/2024 Bhupendra Singh S/o Shree Amar Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 58, Riddhi Siddhi Nagar Vistar, Kardhani Ke Piche, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Rajnish Chauhan S/o Shree Tejpal Singh, R/o Plot No. 106, Basant Vihar, Panchyawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act Cases) No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the complainant for the purpose of his cross-examination has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the complainant against the petitioner, wherein, his examination-in-chief was recorded on 13.12.2023 and the case was posted for cross-examination. Counsel (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8236/2024] submits that the petitioner and his counsel could not appear before the Court on 22.07.2024, hence the aforesaid opportunity was closed and the case was posted for recording the statements of the petitioner. Counsel submits that on the subsequent date i.e. 03.08.2024, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was submitted for granting last opportunity for summoning the complainant for his cross-examination. Counsel submits that the aforesaid application has been rejected and no opportunity has been granted. Counsel submits that unless and until the complainant is summoned and the opportunity of cross-examination is given to the petitioner, he would not be in a position to put his defence to the aforesaid witness, hence in the interest of justice last opportunity be granted subject to payment of 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 has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner before the Court below way back in the year 2011 and the examination in chief of the complainant was recorded on 13.12.2023, thereafter opportunities were granted to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination, but the petitioner has failed to avail the same. 5. It appears that the sole object of the petitioner is to delay the disposal of the complaint, that is why the opportunities so (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8236/2024] granted were not availed without any justified reason, hence the Court below has not committed an error in passing the order impugned. But looking to the fact that a complaint is pending against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless a last opportunity is granted to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination, he would not be in a position to put his defence and he would be deprived to get fair opportunity of trial. 6. In the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner with the following conditions: i. The petitioner would pay a cost of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant within a period of 15 days from today. ii. The petitioner would implant 11 saplings/plants of the shaded trees in 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. 7. The reasons for passing the present order asking the petitioner to plant 11 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. (4 of 4) [CRLMP-8236/2024] 8. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to comply with either of the conditions within above stipulated time, he would not be granted any opportunity. 9. In case, the petitioner complies with the above conditions within above stipulated time, then the Trial Court would fix a short date and summon the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination and if the cross-examination is not completed on the said fixed date, then a further short date be fixed for the aforesaid purpose, but in any case, no request for adjournment would be entertained. 10. 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. 11. Before parting with this order, this Court deems it just and proper to issue a direction to the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending complaint expeditiously as early as possible, looking to the fact that it is lying pending since last more than 14 years. 12. The reason for passing ex-parte order is to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint filed by the complainant. Even if the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move appropriate application for vacation this order. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/5