[2025:RJ-JP:12421] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 718/2025 Deepa Enterprises, Through Authorized Signatory Puneet Patni S/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Patni, R/o 774,mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Nidhi Financial Services, Through Proprietor Shri Laxmikant Biyani S/o Late Shri Shivbhagwan Biyani, R/o 607 A Crystal Mall, Near Motimahal Cinema, Sawaijaisingh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur. ----Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.C. Dewanda HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 19/03/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with a challenge to the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for allowing him to cross-examine the complainant witness was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 07.09.2024, when the case was listed before the learned trial Court for cross-examination of the complainant witness, counsel for the accused-petitioner could not appear before the trial Court because of some demise in his neighbour and therefore, an [2025:RJ-JP:12421] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-718/2025] opportunity may be allowed to the accused-petitioner to cross- examine the complainant witness. 3. A gist of charge was given out on 11.11.2021. The accused- petitioner on 16.06.2022 moved an application for rejection of the complaint which was disposed of vide order dated 10.04.2023 and the counsel for the accused-petitioner was directed to remain present on the next date of hearing to cross-examine the complainant witness. On 17.10.2023, the statements of the complainant witness were recorded and counsel for the accused- petitioner did not turn up to cross-examine the complainant witness and thus, opportunity to cross-examine the complainant witness was closed on 17.10.2023. On 09.01.2024 i.e. after three months of closing of opportunity of cross-examination, the accused-petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for allowing him an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant witness. The application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 09.01.2024, was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2024 and the accused-petitioner was allowed last opportunity to cross-examine the complainant witness on the cost of Rs.2,000/-. The accused-petitioner instead of cross-examine the complainant witness, moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act on 21.03.2024 which was disposed on 06.05.2024. While disposing of the application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act on 06.05.2024, counsel for the accused-petitioner was asked to cross-examine the complainant witness on the next date on 21.05.2024. On 21.05.2024, counsel for the accused-petitioner instead of cross-examine the complainant witness moved an [2025:RJ-JP:12421] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-718/2025] application which was also disposed of 19.07.2024 and again counsel for the accused-petitioner was asked to cross-examine the complainant witness on the next date of hearing. On 27.08.2024, the complainant was present before the trial Court but counsel for the petitioner did not cross-examine him and again on 07.09.2024, counsel for the petitioner did not turn up to cross- examine the complainant witness. 4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that on 07.09.2024, counsel for the accused-petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court because of said demise in his neighbour. May be counsel for the accused-petitioner did not turn up on 07.09.2024 because of some reason, but he was allowed ample opportunity to cross-examine the complainant witness on the earlier dates. Earlier also, opportunity of cross-examination was closed on 17.10.2023 and on an application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., he was allowed last opportunity to cross-examine the complainant witness on the cost of Rs.2,000/-. However, even after allowing him last opportunity, counsel for the accused-petitioner did not cross-examine the complainant witness on several occasions. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that counsel for the accused-petitioner instead of to cross-examine the complainant-witness on various occasions has moved various applications and such act of the accused-petitioner seems to be an intention to delay the proceedings. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:12421] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-718/2025] 7. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 8. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /23