[2026:RJ-JP:38099] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6796/2026 CNR: RJHC010776652026 | URN: CRLMP / 11950U / 2026 Trilokchand S/o Shri Rajendrasingh Parihar, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Hanuman Sagar, Navoda Bera Mata Ka Than, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Monika Gehlot W/o Vikramsingh Gehlot, Caste Mali, Resident Of Chaturavato Ka Bera, Mangara Punjala, Jodhpur. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 10/08/2026 By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “ अतः फौजादरी ध याका तुत कर ेद है क पीश की याका को ीकार फरमा#, आदेश दाक आदेश 13/06/2026 %यायालय अपर सेश %यायाधीश -3 जोधपुर महागर पीठासी अधकारी रामकु मार ौहा, आर०जे०एस० ( ,जला %यायाधीश संग.) फौजदारी गराी सं/या: 20/2026 ( ए०सी०ी० 0बर 20/2026) 23लोकंद बाम 4ीमती मोका %यायालय 5श6 %यायक म,जे, ( ए०आई०ए8 करण) सं/या-4 जोधपुर महागर पीठासी अधकारी 4ी योगेश कु मार, आर०जे०एस० :ारा फौजदारी मूल करण सं/या 208 / 2019, ए०सी०ी० 0बर 7459 / 2018 ( बअा मोका गहलोत बाम 23लोकंद ) आदेश दाक 25/09/2025 रत फरमाे का आदेश पा<रत कर गाह मोका गहलोत पुः परी=ा / रीकॉल ?म 5सह को मु/य परी=ण हेतु बुलाे का आदेश फरमा# । अ%य कोई उत ” आदेश जो पीीश के प= म# हो फरमाे । 2. Heard. [2026:RJ-JP:38099] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6796/2026] 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has instituted the complaint against the petitioner alleging dishonour of a cheque for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- under Section 138 of the NI Act, despite there being no outstanding amount or legally enforceable debt or liability against the petitioner. It is submitted that Vikram Singh Gehlot, husband of the complainant, had obtained the disputed cheque as security towards the amount of B.C. and subsequently misused the signed blank cheque. Learned counsel submits that, in order to bring the true facts and circumstances relating to the alleged misuse of the signed blank cheque on record, it is necessary to summon Vikram Singh Gehlot, Lalit Gehlot and Monika Gehlot (complainant) as defence witnesses. 5. Upon perusal of the case file, this Court finds that the matter has been pending before the learned trial Court since the year 2018. After recording of the statement of the petitioner on 05.01.2024, he was afforded ample opportunities to produce his defence evidence. However, no steps were taken by him to produce or summon any defence witnesses. Consequently, his right to produce defence evidence was closed on 13.08.2024 and the matter was thereafter fixed for final arguments. It is at the stage of final hearing that the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of [2026:RJ-JP:38099] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6796/2026] Vikram Singh Gehlot, Lalit Gehlot and Monika Gehlot as defence witnesses. It is also noteworthy that the statement of the complainant, Monika Gehlot, was recorded on 20.01.2020, whereafter she was duly cross-examined by the petitioner/accused. The learned trial Court, as well as the revisional Court, after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has recorded a concurrent finding that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the apparent intention of delaying the trial, which is at its fag end. The Courts below have further considered the application on merits and observed that the statement of the complainant has already been recorded and she has been thoroughly cross- examined, including on the issue as to whether the subject cheques had been issued as security to her husband in connection with the B.C. transaction. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. 7. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 8. The stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J 13/Divya Raj Jasmatiya