Partly allowed

Kuldeep Singh Rathore S/O Shri Bhim Singh Rathore, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2025CRLMP/8763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner faced trial for cheque bounce. His applications for cross-examination were rejected. HC allowed crypto-application but conditionally, directing petitioner to pay Rs.10,000 cost to complainant. If unpaid, no further opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Last opportunity to cross-examine granted conditionally upon payment of Rs.10,000 cost to complainant by next hearing date.

Kuldeep Singh Rathore S/O Shri Bhim Singh Rathore, Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:583]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8763/2024

¶4

Kuldeep Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bhim Singh Rathore, M/s Smart Home, Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory, R/o S-29, Kumawat Colony, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Sanjeeev Kumar Verma S/o Shri H.c. Verma, R/o S-2, Kumawat Colony, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

06/01/2025

¶14

The instant misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I Act cases) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶15

Counsel submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Counsel submits that an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 219 Cr.P.C however, the same was rejected on the very same day i.e. on 03.08.2024. The opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner with the complainant was closed. Counsel further submits that the subsequently an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was

[2025:RJ-JP:583]

[CRLMP-8763/2024]

(2 of 3)

submitted for recalling the complainant for the purpose of crossexamination. Counsel submits that the said application has been rejected vide order dated 29.08.2024 against which the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. however, the same was rejected vide order dated 09.12.2024 by the Revisional Court while holding that the revision petition against the said order is not maintainable.

¶20

Counsel has further submitted that the cross-examination is a statutory right of an accused and a fair opportunity is required to be provided to the accused so that he could cross-examine the complaint and therefore last opportunity be provided to the petitioner subject to payment of cost to the complainant. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perusal the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner has been closed by the trial Judge vide order dated 03.08.2024 and the petitioner is facing trial since the year 2020, it appears that delay has been caused on the part of the petitioner and i.e why the aforesaid order was passed and thereafter, an application was submitted by the petitioner for recalling the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination, however, the said application has been rejected on 29.08.2024. Cross-examination with the witness is a statutory right of an accused and in order to conduct a fair trial, such opportunity should not be declined to the accused. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to pay the cost

[2025:RJ-JP:583]

[CRLMP-8763/2024]

(3 of 3)

amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant on or before the next date before the Trial Court. In case, the petitioner pays the aforesaid amount to the complainant, than last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant.

¶25

It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to crossexamining the complainant on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the same and the trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations, the instant misc. petition stands disposed of.

¶27

Before parting with this order, it is observed by this Court that this ex-parte order has been passed by this Court without issuing notice to the complainant in order to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint filed by him against the petitioner.

¶28

In case the complainant is aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move an application for recall of this order by way of filing revival application.

¶29

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

NEERU/52

Kuldeep Singh Rathore S/O Shri Bhim Singh Rathore, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh Rathore S/O Shri Bhim Singh Rathore, v. State of Rajasthan

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

Rajkumari D/O Sh. Bhagwan Sahay B/C Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mithun Dey S/O Protul Dey Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Kavita Kumari Meena Daughter of Shri Kalu Lal Meena, Wife of Shri Manish Kumar Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Minakshi D/O Niranjan, Vs State of Rajashtan

Ranjan @ Deepak Vs State of Rajasthan through P P