Dismissed

Agresh Sharma Son of Shri Buddhiram Sharma v. Shri Laxmikant Biyani Son of Late Shri Shivbhagwan Biyani

Rajasthan HC19 May 2025CRLMP/290/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application to call witnesses in a cheque dishonour case. The Court held that the petitioner could examine the witnesses as defence witnesses after the complainant closed evidence, finding no illegality in the impugned order. The petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Agresh Sharma Son of Shri Buddhiram Sharma Vs Shri… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:20941]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 290/2025

¶4

Agresh Sharma Son Of Shri Buddhiram Sharma, Resident Of 224/a, Avadhpuri Second, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur- 302015.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Laxmikant Biyani Son Of Late Shri Shivbhagwan Biyani, Resident Of 607, A, Crystal Mall, Near Motimahal Cinema, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mohd. Abid Khan,
	Ms. Anjali Vashisth,
	Mr. Areeb Ahmed
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Arti Sharma, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

19/05/2025

¶13

The present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS, challenging the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, whereby, an application for calling the witnesses Mahendra Yadav and wife of the complainant was dismissed.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses Mahendra Yadav and wife of the complainant are essential witnesses to the case, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 05.12.2024 may be quashed and witnesses may be directed to be examined.

¶15

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶16

The matter pertains to a complaint filed under Section 138 of

¶17

NI Act. The complainant has already been examined and in the

[2025:RJ-JP:20941]

[CRLMP-290/2025]

(2 of 2)

cross-examination, he has stated that Mahendra Yadav and other employees were present when the money was handed over to the petitioner. On the basis of the cross-examination the petitioner sought for calling of the witnesses to be examined. The petitioner is free to examine the witnesses as defence witnesses as the complainant has already closed his evidence and the complainant cannot be compelled to produce the witnesses who were present at the time of transaction.

¶22

This Court after consideration the arguments advanced by the petitioner, do not find any illegality in the impugned order and accordingly, the criminal misc. petition challenging the order dated 05.12.2024 is hereby, dismissed.

¶23

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶24

Keshav/5

Agresh Sharma Son of Shri Buddhiram Sharma v. Shri Laxmikant Biyani Son of Late Shri Shivbhagwan Biyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Agresh Sharma Son of Shri Buddhiram Sharma v. Shri Laxmikant Biyani Son of Late Shri Shivbhagwan Biyani

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

Satyanarayan Gupta Son of Late Mr. Radhe Shyam Gupta, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Victim Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohail Anwar Lone S/O Mohammad Anwar Lone Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Bhaskar Pareek S/O Late Shri Girdhari Lal Pareek, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Madangopal Gandhi S/O Sh. Nanagram Saini, Vs Tulsi Narayan Gupta S/O Late Sh. Badri Narayan

Chaman S/O Pannalal Vs the State of Rajasthan