The court has the discretion to grant final opportunities for cross-examination, but may impose substantial costs to compensate for delays and harassment caused by misuse of such opportunities.

JUDGMENT

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to assail the order dated 6.7.2018 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate(N.I. Act Cases) No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 197/2016 titled Arun Pareek vs. Umesh Bihari, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973.

2. Petitioner had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 6,80,000/-. The said cheque on presentation had bounced. Resultantly, complainant respondent instituted a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for prosecution of the petitioner.

3. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that from 8.11.2016 onwards the case was fixed for cross-examination of the complainant-respondent. Thereafter, on 25.11.2016, 12.1.2017, 18.2.2017, 21.3.2017, 21.4.2017, 12.7.2017, 4.9.2017, 7.10.2017, 9.10.2017 and 23.3.2018, the case was adjourned for cross-examination of the complainant.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that ten opportunities were granted, but the cross-examination was not carried. The trial court on 18.2.2017 granted last opportunity to the petitioner, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 400, still cross-examination was not carried. Thereafter, again on 9.10.2017 at the cost of Rs. 1,000/- one more last opportunity was granted to the accused petitioner for cross-examination and on the said date the cross-examination was not carried. Lastly court passed an order that crossexamination of the complainant shall be treated as closed. Resultantly, on 23.3.2018 evidence of the complainant was closed.

5. 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.

6. 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 cross-examination, the petitioner will be left defenceless and shall have no remedy.

7. Considering the order which this court propose to pass, issuance of notice upon the respondents 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.

8. After dispensing with issuance of notice upon the respondents, taking into account the fair play and balance of equities, the petitioner is granted one opportunity to crosscomplainant-respondent subject to payment of cost of Rs. 30,000/-. 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 complainant-respondent. On that day, counsel for the accused-petitioner shall conclude the cross-examination. However, if due to paucity of time crossexamination of the complainant is not concluded, the trial court shall fix the next day as date for the same.

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