Disposed

Abhishek Sharma S/O Manoj Sharma, v. Rakesh Khandelwal S/O Raghunandan Khandelwal

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2024CRLMP/1080/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused challenged the trial court's rejection of his Section 311 CrPC application to cross-examine the complainant on two settlement deeds in a cheque dishonour complaint. Finding no manifest illegality or jurisdictional error, the High Court did not interfere and disposed of the petition with liberty to present the original settlement deeds at the appellate stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abhishek Sharma S/O Manoj Sharma, Vs Rakesh Khandelwal… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:13131]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1080/2024

¶4

Abhishek Sharma S/o Manoj Sharma, R/o A-24, Golimar Garden, Bhawani Singh Road, 22 Godam, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rakesh Khandelwal S/o Raghunandan Khandelwal, R/o 77, Dhuleshwar Garden, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yellop Singh, Mr. Manoj Sheoran For Respondent(s) : None

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Order

¶12

15/03/2024

¶13

By way of instant criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases), No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in criminal case No.33134/2017 titled Rakesh Khandelwal Vs. Abhishek Sharma whereby and whereunder the application filed by petitioner under Section 311 CrPC seeking to cross examine the non-petitioner/ complainant in the present criminal case, has been rejected.

¶14

During course of arguments and from perusal of record, it has transpired that the non-petitioner-complainant has filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner in respect of dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.2,90,000/-. That complaint was filed way back in the year 2016 whereupon after taking cognizance, and after recording evidence of complaint, the cross-examination of

[2024:RJ-JP:13131]

[CRLMP-1080/2024]

(2 of 3)

the complainant by the accused was closed vide order dated 23.07.2018. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Section 311 CrPC, seeking to re-open the cross-examination, but that application, came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2018. The order dated 16.08.2018 has not been challenged by the petitioner.

¶19

Thereafter, petitioner filed another application under Section 311 CrPC, seeking to cross-examine the complainant, more particularly, stating inter alia, that during proceedings of the present criminal case, a settlement was entered into between parties and terms of written settlement were re-produced in written firstly on 21.01.2020 wherein complainant received cash amount of Rs.45,000/- and then another settlement was written on 31.01.2023 wherein complainant received Rs.40,000/- cash from the petitioner. However, terms of the settlement could not fulfill, therefore, in order to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on these two settlement deeds dated 21.01.2020 and 31.01.2023 of which petitioner wants to place reliance, were not placed on record before the trial Court, much less the original settlement deed has not been produced, during course of regular proceedings of the criminal complaint, on record as has been noted by the trial Court.

¶20

Learned trial Court has noted the conduct of petitioner, to adopt derelictory tactics to delay proceedings of the present criminal complaint.

¶21

At this stage, this Court does not find any manifest illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, however, counsel for

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:13131]

[CRLMP-1080/2024]

petitioner seeks permission to withdraw instant petition with liberty to file both original settlement deeds dated 21.01.2020 and 31.01.2023, at the stage of appeal, if occasion so arises.

¶26

In such view of the matter, without interfering with the impugned order, instant petition stands disposed of with liberty as prayed for.

¶27

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶28

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶29

NITIN /128

Abhishek Sharma S/O Manoj Sharma, v. Rakesh Khandelwal S/O Raghunandan Khandelwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abhishek Sharma S/O Manoj Sharma, v. Rakesh Khandelwal S/O Raghunandan Khandelwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paras Son of Shri Gurjarmal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Reena Jain D/O Shri Babulal Jain W/O Shri Hukam Chand Jain, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Meena S/O Rameshchand Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Girraj S/O Harpal Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

M/S Mmg Health Care Vs the State of Rajasthan