Allowed

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Moolchand Sharma, v. Rajendra Kumar Yogi S/O Shri Moti Lal Yogi

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2025CRLMP/7233/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disallowing rejection of a plea for last opportunity to cross-examine in a NI Act cheque dishonour trial. Court grants opportunity upon payment and planting trees, quashing lower orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 09.10.2024 and 06.01.2025 quashed; petitioner granted opportunity for cross-examination subject to payment of Rs. 20,000 and planting 25 plants.

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Moolchand Sharma, Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7233/2025

¶3

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Moolchand Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Didwana, Ramdas Wali Dhani, Lalsot, Dausa, Rajasthan- 303511.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajendra Kumar Yogi S/o Shri Moti Lal Yogi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 3, Maheshwari Colony, Tonk Phatak, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302015.

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta-PP

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶11

12/11/2025

¶12

By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner is purportedly challenging the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I Act) No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan -I whereby the opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant has been closed and thereafter, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 348 BNSS for re-summoning the complainant for the purpose of his cross-examination was also rejected vide order dated 09.10.2024.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act before the trial Court wherein certain opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. Counsel submits that on the fateful day when the case was posted before the trial Court

¶14

[CRLMP-7233/2025]

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

i.e. on 30.08.2024, counsel of the petitioner was out of station due to some personal reason, hence a request was made to defer the matter for some other day but the request was not entertained and the right of cross-examination of the petitioner was closed vide order dated 30.08.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 348 BNSS before the trial Court bringing into the notice of the Court the above events. Counsel submits that the reasons ascertained in the application were not considered and the same was rejected vide order dated 09.10.2024.

¶17

Counsel further submits that the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the trial Court was assailed before the revisional Court but the revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2025. Counsel submits that unless and until, the petitioner is provided opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, he would not be in a position to put his defence. Therefore, last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, subject to payment of cost to the complainant.

¶18

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that in the year 2023, a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was submitted before the trial Court against the petitioner and, the examination in chief of the complainant was recorded on 26.03.2024 thereafter several dates were posted granting opportunity to the petitioner to crossexamine the complainant but inspite of passing of several dates, the opportunities were not availed by the petitioner. The object of

¶19

[CRLMP-7233/2025]

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

the petitioner is to only delay the disposal of the complaint submitted by the complainant.

¶22

In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any error in closing the opportunity of cross-examine the complainant as several opportunities were granted to him but the said opportunities were not availed by him but looking to the fact that the petitioner is facing trial under Section 138 of the NI Act but until and unless, he is granted a last and final opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, he would not be in a position to put his defence in an appropriate way.

¶23

Considering the above, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition with the following conditions:-

¶24

(I) The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within a period of fifteen days from today.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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 with by him.

¶27

The reasons for passing the 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

¶28

[CRLMP-7233/2025]

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh and oxygen-rich environment.

¶31

In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions within the stipulated time, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant and if the aforesaid conditions are complied with by the petitioner within the above stipulated time, the Trial Court would fix a short date for re-summoning the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination. In case, due to pauctiy of time, the aforesaid exercise is not completed on that date then the trial Court would fix a short date.

¶32

Before parting with this order, it is expected from the trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the complaint expeditiously as early as possible

¶33

For the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned orders dated 09.10.2024 and 06.01.2025 stands quashed and set aside and the instant criminal misc. petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of for the reasons mentioned above.

¶34

The reasons for passing this ex parte order without issuing notice to the complainant is only to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint submitted by him. Even if he feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing appropriate application for recalling of this order.

¶35

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶36

Ashu/57

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Moolchand Sharma, v. Rajendra Kumar Yogi S/O Shri Moti Lal Yogi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Moolchand Sharma, v. Rajendra Kumar Yogi S/O Shri Moti Lal Yogi

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

Jitendra @ Jeetu S/O Late Shri Ramlal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gajraj Singh S/O Shri Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sitaram Jat S/O Ramdhan Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhinav Choudhari S/O Shripal Choudhari Vs State of Rajasthan

Deendayal Son of Kehari, Vs Smt. Rekha Wife of Deendayal D/O Jasram

Vinod S/O Shri Murlidhar Vs State of Rajasthan