JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying that the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act, No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, be set aside as the grave error was committed by the court below to dismiss the application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 2. Petitioner had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 9 lakhs in favour of the respondent. The said cheque on presentation had bounced. Respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for prosecution of the petitioner. 3. Respondent appeared before the trial court and stated that the cheque was issued by the petitioner as he had obtained a loan for domestic and business requirements. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that since respondent had no financial capacity to issue the cheque and the complainant in cross examination admitted that he had not taken any security towards the loan advanced but accused had only issued the cheque. After the cross-examination of the complainant concluded an application was filed by the petitioner under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying that the complainant respondent be directed to produce his bank pass book, ledger and account books to prove that he was possessed of Rs. 9 lakh on the said date, when loan was advanced.. 5. There is presumption in favour of the drawer of the cheque. No fishing roving inquiry can be conducted in the cross-examination. Petitioner had not replied to the notice given by the accused respondent. In the cross-examination no basis was laid for requisitioning the said documents. 6. A perusal of the cross-examination reveal that nothing was asked to the complainant whether he was maintaining any account or ledger books or whether there is any entry in the pass book regarding withdrawal of amount or not. Complainant stated that he is having hotel business, and annual turnover of the same is seven to eight lakh rupees and he had brought the amount advanced from his house. 7. It may be noted here that in the present petition order dated 03.05.2017 has been assailed after one year and two months. 8. Apparently, the present application has been filed to delay the proceedings. No ground is made to cause interference, in the well reasoned ordered passed by the trial court, exercising valid discretion. 7. It may be noted here that in the present petition order dated 03.05.2017 has been assailed after one year and two months. 8. Apparently, the present application has been filed to delay the proceedings. No ground is made to cause interference, in the well reasoned ordered passed by the trial court, exercising valid discretion. 9. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.