HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 109/2026 Hemlata Satyani D/o Shri Chandraprakash Satyani, Aged About 35 Years, R/o- Care Of Sonu Kumar, House No.581, J.p. Nagar Naka, Madar, Tehsil District Ajmer (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus Tej Kumar Sindhi S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Sindhi, R/o House No.

F-37, Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara Raj.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : -----

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

14/01/2026 This misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS challenging the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act) Cases No.4, Bhilwara in Regular Criminal Case No.3769/2020, whereby opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant was closed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was kept for cross-examination of the respondent-complainant on 20.11.2025, however, on that day petitioner’s counsel was not available and therefore, cross-examination of respondent- complainant could not be conducted. Thereupon, the trial court has closed the opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent-complainant. Learned counsel prays that one last opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent-complainant.

The court has considered the matter. It is seen that as arguing counsel of the petitioner was not present before the trial court on the aforesaid date the cross examination was closed. The petitioner is entitled for fair trial in the case.

This Court in Dalveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 CRI.L.J. 3064 has observed that criminal justice delivery system is essentially founded on Constitution of India and a sacrosanct fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life and liberty, cannot be circumscribed and curtailed without adhering to the procedure established by law. While granting indulgence to the accused, the Court made a specific observation that a mistake of the counsel should not prejudice the cause of a litigant. The Court held:-

“6.The entire criminal justice system is based on Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Both life and personal liberty can be cribbed, cabined and confined only by procedure established by law. But even the procedure has to be a reasonable one. A fair trial is a constitutional guaranteed right of an accused. Since, the accused is pitted against the colossal power of the State, the laws, ipso facto, tilt in favour of the accused. Until and unless, the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine a witness, he would not be able to demolish the prosecution case. Therefore, the right to cross- examine a witness is a fundamental right of the accused; such a right cannot be brushed aside lightly by the trial court. Even if a prejudice is being caused to the prosecution, even then, the fundamental right cannot be ignored.

Further, repeatedly it has been held both by the Apex Court and by this Court that a mistake of a counsel should not prejudice the case of a litigant.

7. In the case of P.Sanjeeva Rao, AIR 2012 SC 2242(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined as under:- But merely because a mistake was committed, should not result in the accused suffering a penalty totally disproportionate to the gravity of the error committed by his lawyer. Denial of an opportunity to recall the witnesses for cross-examination would amount to condemning the Appellant without giving him the opportunity to challenge the correctness of the version and the credibility of the witnesses. It is trite that the credibility of witnesses whether in a civil or criminal case can be tested only when the testimony is put through the fire of cross- examination. Denial of an opportunity to do so will result in a serious miscarriage of justice in the present case keeping in view the seriou