Disposed

Sharwan Kumar Agarwal ( Hisaria) v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2025CRLMP/7091/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner facing cheque dishonour trial since 2017 challenged closure of his cross-examination opportunity. The court upheld the impugned order but granted one final opportunity to cross-examine, subject to paying Rs.25,000 costs and planting 25 shady trees, failing which no further opportunity would be given.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sharwan Kumar Agarwal ( Hisaria) Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44632]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7091/2025

¶4

Sharwan Kumar Agarwal ( Hisaria), ( Pro.) M/s Rakesh Vayapaar Kendra R/o Professior Colony, Ward No. 33 ( Near Vayapaar Mandal Girls School ) Post- Hanumangarh, Thasil- Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Raj 335513.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Smt. Anju Patwari, Pro. M/s Arpit Patwari And Company, R/o 13, Choudhary Colony, V.k.i. Area Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Shri Rajkumar Patwari S/o Shri Ram Richpal Ji Patwari R/o 13, Choudhary Colony V.k.i. Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Avi Sharma for
	Mr. Rajeev Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta,PP

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

06/11/2025

¶14

By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan-I by which the opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner has been closed and the application seeking opportunity for the aforesaid purpose submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial before the court below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act of 1881”). Learned counsel submits that until and unless an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, the

[2025:RJ-JP:44632]

[CRLMP-7091/2025]

(2 of 4)

petitioner would not be in a position to put his defence in the proceedings. Hence, the last opportunity be granted to him for the aforesaid purpose subject to payment of cost to the complainant.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 before the trial court since 2017. The record as well as the order dated 19.10.2024 reflect that the examination-in-chief of the complainant was done on 16.03.2022 and the case was posted for cross-examination, but the same was not done, hence, a cost of Rs.500/- was imposed on the petitioner on 14.06.2022 by granting him another opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. Thereafter, several dates were posted in-between and finally, last and final opportunity was granted to him on 12.04.2024 subject to payment of cost of Rs.200/-. Thereafter, the petitioner absconded on 16.04.2024 and his bail bonds were forfeited. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the trial court on 19.07.2024 and again he sought time for cross-examining the complainant and again last opportunity was granted to him, but he has failed to avail the aforesaid opportunity.

¶21

It appears that whole and sole purpose of the petitioner is to delay the disposal of the complaint, which is lying pending against him before the trial court since last eight years that is why since March, 2022 to till date, the petitioner has not availed the opportunity to cross-examine, which was granted to him in between inspite of imposition of cost upon him.

[2025:RJ-JP:44632]

[CRLMP-7091/2025]

(3 of 4)

Hence, the trial court has not committed an error in passing the order impugned, but looking to the fact that unless and until, the last opportunity is granted to petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination, he would not be in a position to cross-examine the complainant and put his defence in the case. Hence, in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner subject to following conditions:-

¶26

(I) The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent-complainant within a period of 15 days from today.

¶27

(II) The petitioner would plant 25 shady plants in their vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of two weeks from today and he is further directed to look after these plants.

¶28

(III) The petitioner would submit the photographs of these plants before the trial court to show that the condition No.II imposed by this Court has been duly complied by him.

¶29

The reasons for passing this present order directing the petitioner to plant 25 plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh and oxygen-rich environment.

¶30

In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions within the above stipulated time, the last and final opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-

[2025:RJ-JP:44632]

[CRLMP-7091/2025]

(4 of 4)

examination with the complainant. The trial court would summon the complainant for the aforesaid purpose by fixing the short fixed date.

¶35

In case, due to paucity of time, the cross-examination of the petitioner with the complainant is not completed on the same day, then a short fixed date be fixed for the aforesaid purpose.

¶36

In case, the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the above stipulated time, no further opportunity of cross-examination would be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant and the trial court would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal misc. petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of.

¶38

The reason for passing this ex parte order without issuing notice to the complainant is to avoid further delay. Even otherwise, the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, she would be at liberty to move application for vacation of this order by way of filing appropriate application.

¶39

Before parting with this order, it is expected from the trial court to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending complaint expeditiously, as early as possible, looking to the fact that the same is lying pending since last more than eight years.

¶40

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶41

Karan/81

Sharwan Kumar Agarwal ( Hisaria) v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sharwan Kumar Agarwal ( Hisaria) v. State of Rajasthan

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

Imran S/O Anwar Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gagan Mitra S/O Premprakash Mitra, Vs Rajesh Mendiratta, S/O Sh. Mohan Lal Mendiratta

Mahendra Singh Mehta S/O Shri Late Shri Laxmi Chan Mehta, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vashishth S/O Shri Manoj Vashishth, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Roop Singh S/O Shri Ramkhiladi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Saini S/O Let Gaarsi Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan