##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15386]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 184/2026

Durjan Singh S/o Shri Man Singh Kitawant, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Mukam Post-Ramporia Near To Daria, Via-

Uthrol, District Rajsamand, Raj..

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rakesh Jain S/o Shri Chattar Lal Jain, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Vaibhav Collection, Toran Bawari, Bus

Stand Road, Udaipur Raj..

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Mavliya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/04/2026

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2025, whereby the learned Magistrate directed to close the right of the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the complainant, the instant

revision petition has been preferred before this Court.

2. After having gone through the material supplied to this Court, prima facie I am of the opinion that ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner to contest the case, to cross- examine the complainant or his witnesses but the same were not availed of. On two occasions, the matter got adjourned at the cost of Rs.100/- and on another occasion at the cost of Rs.200/- while giving a liberty to the counsel for the accused to cross-examine the complainant. On 11.11.2025, the complainant was present

(Uploaded on 07/04/2026 at 05:19:13 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 08:15:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15386] (2 of 3) [CRLR-184/2026] before the trial Court to make himself available for cross- examination; however, neither the accused nor his counsel appeared. Instead, an application seeking exemption from personal appearance was submitted, and the learned trial Court, showing benevolence, accepted the same. However, upon observing that due opportunities had already been granted to the petitioner, the Court ordered that the right to cross-examine the

witness be closed.

3. I have pondered over the issue, though the conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated but at the same time, it is felt that he is facing a trial for committing an offence under the penal provisions of Negotiable Instrument and the cheque pertains to Rs.6,40,000/-. While due opportunities were given to him which he deliberately lost but still in the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to him so that he may place his defence before the trial Court. The complaint is pending before the learned trial Court since the year 2018 and is now at the verge of final disposal. If an interim order is passed staying the proceeding for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the complainant/respondent to appear before this Court, I am of the opinion that the same would further make protraction of the trial which would not be in the interest of the parties instead it is felt

appropriate to pass the following directions:-

I The order impugned dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside to the extent it relates to the closure of right of the petitioner to cross- examine the complainant. The petitioner shall deposit

(Uploaded on 07/04/2026 at 05:19:13 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 08:15:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15386] (3 of 3) [CRLR-184/2026]

Rs.2,000/- with the trial Court for the purpose of handing over the same to the complainant for the

inconvenience caused to him.

II Only upon deposition of the amount, the learned trial Court shall ask the complainant to remain present and for that purpose, a particular date shall be fixed. On the day fixed so, the petitioner or his counsel shall conduct cross-examination and would complete it on the very same day without making any procrastination. III If the cost amount is not deposited within next ten days, the instant order shall not remain operative and in force and the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 11.11.2025 shall be rejuvenated

automatically.

4. With the above observations, the instant revision petition is

disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J

33-divya/-