The court upheld the dismissal of a petition for failing to cross-examine the complainant, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders and procedural timelines.

ORDER :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for brevity, 'learned Revisional Court') in Revision Petition No.13/2023 (CIS No.411/2023) (CNR No.RJJM01-008070- 2023) whereby, while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the accused petitioner, the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for brevity, 'learned trial Court') in Case No.79/2022 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has been affirmed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that in a criminal case arising out of a complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant (for brevity, 'complainant') under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the petitioner failed to cross-examine the complainant, his this right was closed by learned trial Court vide order dated 25.04.2023. On an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 08.05.2023, the learned trial Court afforded him an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/-. On the next date fixed for cross-examination, i.e., 23.05.2023, on failure on the part of the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, his this right was closed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.05.2023 and an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 10.07.2023. The revision petition preferred there against has also been dismissed by learned Revisional Court vide order dated 07.10.2023.

3. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be afforded one more opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner subject to payment of cost. He, therefore, prays that the criminal misc. petition be allowed, the order dated 07.10.2023 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C. be allowed.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. The right of cross-examination of the petitioner was closed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.04.2023 when he failed to cross-examine the complainant despite opportunity. However, while allowing an application filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C., he was afforded a fresh opportunity by the learned trial Court vide order dated 08.05.2023 subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/-. On the date fixed for cross-examination, i.e., 23.05.2023, the petitioner again failed to cross-examine the complainant. Further, neither the cost was paid on that day nor, any request was made on that day to furnish one more opportunity of cross-examination; rather, as late as on 08.06.2023, the petitioner filed yet another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. making a bald averment that on account of engagement of the learned counsel in another Court, the aforesaid opportunity could not be availed. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 10.07.2023 assigning cogent reasons and the revision petition filed there against has also been dismissed by the learned Revisional Court in its judicious discretion.

6. This Court finds no good reason to interfere in the judicious order passed by the learned Court in exercise of their judicial discretion. The material on record reveals that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and has no respect for the Court orders and the mandate of law. This Court has gone through the contents of the application dated 08.06.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and finds it to be bereft of any satisfactory explanation for not subjecting the complainant to the cross-examination on the date fixed for that purpose or for non payment of cost except making a bald and vague averment that it could not be done so as his counsel was busy in another Court which has rig