ORDER : 1. Application for early listing is allowed. 2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage. 3. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition aggrieved by order dated 04.07.2018 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected. 4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the cheque dishonour complaint was filed by the complainant alleging that a sum of Rs.40 lac was advanced to the petitioner. It is also contended that the complainant runs a dairy and general store. There was no reason for him to advance a sum of Rs.40 lac. It is also contended that the cheque was given for some compromise between the son of the accused and brother and father of the complainant which has been misused by the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant in his cross-examination has mentioned that he has given Rs.10 lac from his personal savings, Rs.10 lac from his in-laws and remaining Rs.20 lac has been borrowed from his uncle Jagdish. 5. It is also contended that petitioner moved an application under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. however, the same should be filed under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the Court. It is also contended that petitioner wants to summon complainant’s uncle from whom complainant states he has borrowed money. 6. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that matter is pending since 2014 and after availing ample opportunities, present petition has been filed. Petitioner is not related to the complainant. Complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that he is not aware about the income of the petitioner and his husband. He has mentioned in his complaint about his source of money and how he has advanced a sum of Rs.40 lac. However, in his cross-examination he has mentioned that he has borrowed Rs.10 lac from his father-in-law and Rs.20 lac from his uncle. It is indeed that complainant borrowed money to advance to the petitioner with whom he has no such acquaintance so as to advance the sum of Rs.40 lac. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. However, in his cross-examination he has mentioned that he has borrowed Rs.10 lac from his father-in-law and Rs.20 lac from his uncle. It is indeed that complainant borrowed money to advance to the petitioner with whom he has no such acquaintance so as to advance the sum of Rs.40 lac. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. In view of the same, summoning the uncle would throw light on the facts of the case and would be relevant for deciding the controversy in question. 9. Hence, the misc. petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. 10. Stay application stands disposed. 11. Trial Court is directed to summon the uncle of complainant as defence witness.