Allowed

M/S Kanjior Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd v. Vijit Hajarika Son of Shri Vasudev Hajarika

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2024CRLMP/323/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Court allowed petitioners one and last opportunity to produce defence evidence in a cheque dishonour trial pending since 2023, subject to payment of cost, to serve interest of justice despite delays in filing evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are entitled to produce defence evidence after payment of cost Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

M/S Kanjior Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs Vijit Hajarika Son… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:8478]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 323/2023

¶4

M/s Kanjior Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Through Director Dinesh Singh Sikarwar Son Of Shri Shiv Charan Sikarwar, Resident Of 135A, C D Block, Dadu Dayal Nagar, Muhana Mandi Road, Mansarowar, Jaipur (Raj).

¶5

Dinesh Chand Sikarwar Son Of Shri Shivcharan Sikarwar, Director M/s Kanjior Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Address135A, C D Block, Dadu Dayal Nagar, Muhana Mandi Road, Mansarowar, Jaipur (Raj).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Vijit Hajarika Son Of Shri Vasudev Hajarika, Prop. M/s Agarwal Steel, Address- Block F-74-A, Prathviraj Nagar, Patrakar Colony Road, Mansarovar, District Jaipur (Raj).

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Chandel
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ravindra Paliwal for
	Mr. Anshul Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

19/02/2024

¶14

Matter has come upon applications (1/2024 and 2/2024) for early hearing of the petition.

¶15

For reasons mentioned in applications, the same are allowed.

¶16

Instant petition has been filed by petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 07.12.2022 passed in criminal case No.188/2022 by the Pilot Study Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the opportunity to produce defence evidence of petitioners, is closed.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for both parties.

¶18

Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are facing trial for offence under Section 138 NI Act in respect of dishonor of

[2024:RJ-JP:8478]

[CRLMP-323/2023]

(2 of 3)

cheque amouting to Rs.5 lacs. In such criminal complaint, defence evidence of petitioners has been closed vide impugned order dated 07.12.2022 and the complaint is pending at the stage of final hearing since 04.01.2023. Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners have substantive and plausible defence, to defend the criminal complaint, therefore, one and last opportunity be accorded to petitioners on cost. He submits that defence is a valuable right of petitioners-accused and in order to hold a fair trial, it is necessary and desirable to grant an opportunity to produce the defence by petitioners.

¶23

Having heard counsel for both parties and in view of the fact that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act are pending at the stage of final arguments since 04.01.2023, without going into negligence on the part of petitioners not to produce their evidence during opportunities granted to them, this Court deems it just and proper that interest of justice would be served to grant one and last opportunity to adduce the defence evidence by petitioners on cost.

¶24

Accordingly, instant petition stands disposed of with the following order:

¶25

Petitioners shall be entitled subject to payment of cost Rs.10,000/- to the complainant to produce their defence evidence on the dates, so fixed by the trial Court in presence of both parties after placing on record the certified copy of this order.

¶26

It is made clear that the trial Court may fix two consecutive dates to complete defence evidence and no further opportunity shall be accorded.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:8478]

[CRLMP-323/2023]

Since the criminal complainant by the respondentcomplainant was filed on 16.01.2017, it is expected that the trial Court shall proceed thereafter to decide the criminal complaint within a period of three months, if possible.

¶31

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

¶32

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶33

NITIN /715

M/S Kanjior Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd v. Vijit Hajarika Son of Shri Vasudev Hajarika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kanjior Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd v. Vijit Hajarika Son of Shri Vasudev Hajarika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nidhi Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Saurabh Agarwal Son of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahruddin S/O Mubin, Vs State of Rajasthan

Aash Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt. Chumaki Bai Prajapat D/O Shri Ramdhan Prajapat, Wife of Shri Narendra Kumar Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sadrunisha W/O Hidayatulla Khan Vs State of Rajasthan