Bhagwan Sahay Meena @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the impugned order dated 21.2.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate

No.34, Jaipur Metropolitan, Chaksu, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, be set aside alongwith order

dated 30.6.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Headquarter Sanganer.

Petitioner had issued a cheque amounting to Rs.15 Lac in favour of the complainant-respondent No.2. The said cheque, on presentation, bounced and

the complainant initiated prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said complaint, on 26.6.2013

cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner. The accusedpetitioner appeared in the trial court on 21.3.2014. Complainant presented his

affidavit for cross-examination on 2.5.2014. 27.5.2014 was fixed for cross-examination of the complainant. On that date, an adjournment was sought

and case was fixed for 5.7.2014. Then a cost of Rs.200/- was imposed. Thereafter the petitioner availed three dates on 27.8.2014, 11.11.2014 and

23.12.2014, but no cross-examination was extended. On 23.12.2014, cost of Rs.1000/- was imposed and case was fixed for 24.1.2015. On 24.1.2015

accused-petitioner absented and bail bonds were forfeited. After one year, accused appeared and surrendered before the trial court on 17.5.2016.

Thereafter crossexamination was not extended on 15.6.2016, 5.8.2016 and 21.9.2016. Cost of Rs.700/- was imposed on 21.9.2016. On 27.10.2016, no

cross-examination was extended and the accused sought time to affect compromise with the complainant.

Resultantly, the trial court was left with no option, but to close the right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant. Thus, the trial court

recorded cross-examination of the complainant as ‘NIL’.

This is a case where complainant has been harassed. The accused misused the magnanimity of the court. Complainant has been appearing on each

and every date, but on one pretext or the other, cross-examination was not carried. The accused simply wanted to delay the proceedings.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the act of the counsel, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. It is submitted that

if examination-in-chief of the complainant is taken into consideration without crossexamination, the petitioner will be left defenceless and shall have no

remedy.

Considering the order which this court propose to pass, issuance of notice upon the complainant-respondent No.2 is dispensed with as issuance of

notice will further delay the proceedings and the petitioner will succeed in its game plan to delay the proceedings. Furthermore, the complainant will be

fastened with unnecessary cost and litigation expenses.

After dispensing with issuance of notice upon the complainant-respondent No.2, taking into account the fair play and balance of equities, the petitioner

is granted one opportunity to cross-examine the complainant subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-. The cost shall be disbursed to the complainant

who has been made to suffer. It is ordered that upon deposit of cost by the petitioner within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order, the trial court, as per its convenience and calendar, shall fix one date for cross-examination of the complainant. On that day, counsel for the

accused-petitioner shall conclude the cross-examination. However, if due to paucity of time cross-examination of the complainant is not concluded, the

trial court shall fix the next day as date for the same.

In view of above, the present petition stands disposed of.