ORDER :

MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J.

1. The instant Misc. Petition under Sections 528 BNSS (482 Cr.PC.) have been filed against the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act No.4, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 3288/2018, whereby the learned magistrate has closed the cross-examination before its completion by the counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. Perused the material available on record.

3. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of this petition is that the respondent-complainant had submitted a complaint in the year 2018 for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act with the allegation that the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent-complainant for Rs.9,96,000/- has been dishonoured by the concerning bank with the remark “Funds Insufficient” thereafter taking cognizance of the offence, process was issued and the petitioner accused appeared before the Court concerned. On several occasions, while allowing cross-examination, the counsel for the petitioner couldn’t make himself available before the court concerned and the matter got adjourned with a direction to be present before the court on the next day at 10:30 a.m. Thereafter, when the counsel for the petitioner was supposed to do the cross- examination, he again insisted on passing over the matter, citing prior commitments. Subsequently, the learned trial Court closed the right of the accused to cross- examine the complainant. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 reveals that despite availment of several effective opportunities, the petitioner did not cross-examine the complainant, which led the learned Magistrate closing the cross- examination on the ground that the Co-ordinate bench of this court has directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial of the case and disposed of the same preferably within 10 months.

4. The order (supra) caused grievance to the petitioner and led him to institute an application for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.08.2025 and allowing the cross-examination of the complainant. The grounds, as urged therein for quashing of the impugned order (supra), are that the cross-examination of the complainant-respondent no. 2 is already completed in 2 pending cases arising out of similarly situated private complaints. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the cross-examination could not be completed on 18^th and 19^th August, 2025 on account of serious illness of father of the petitioner’s counsel and his prior commitments in other courts.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his asking for the relief (supra), besides reiterating the submissions, as carried in the application for quashing of the impugned order, makes submissions that the most important and prime witness, in a trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is none else than the complainant himself, therefore, any denial to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine such a prime witness would tantamount to denying him the right to a fair trial, besides would violate his fundamental right, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Citing “audi alteram partem” to be the most fundamental principle of natural justice, the learned counsel for the petitioner implores one effective opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. Moreover, the failure to cross-examine the complainant was not at all attributable to the present petitioner.

6. On the other han