Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 43 (RAJ)

Istikhar Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-08

DINESH MEHTA

body2024
ORDER : 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court'), whereby the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act Cases) No. 3, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') has been affirmed. 2. The facts relevant for the present purpose are that the petitioner is an accused in a complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner's right to cross-examine was closed by the trial court vide its order dated 22.06.2022, where-against the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which too has been rejected by the revisional court vide its order dated 20.12.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one last opportunity be allowed to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, maybe at a cost. 4. In support of such prayer, learned counsel cited orders dated 03.02.2023, 04.04.2023 and 10.04.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the criminal petitions (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition Nos. 636/2023, 1424/2023 and 4996/2021), in which indulgence has been granted. 5. During the course of submissions, learned counsel candidly informed that the matter is listed today for final arguments before the trial court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the trial court, whereby the petitioner's right to cross-examine was eschewed reveals that the trial court has given numerous opportunities, even at cost, but the petitioner has not cross-examined the complainant. A perusal of the revisional court's order reveals that the petitioner has been taking unwarranted adjournments for two and a half years, where after, the trial court was left with no other option but to close the evidence of the petitioner. 8. It is to be noted that the revisional court has rejected the petition way back on 20.12.2022 and the matter is fixed for final arguments. 9. The petitioner is not entitled for any sort of indulgence or equitable relief. The facts on record clearly shows that the petitioner is not interested or serious in defending his case and has been taking unnecessary adjournments, in order to protract the proceedings of the trial court. 10. 9. The petitioner is not entitled for any sort of indulgence or equitable relief. The facts on record clearly shows that the petitioner is not interested or serious in defending his case and has been taking unnecessary adjournments, in order to protract the proceedings of the trial court. 10. So far as the orders cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, suffice it to observe that the facts therein are clearly distinguishable and even the offences alleged against such petitioners are other than the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 11. Considering the scheme of expeditious disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the fact that the petitioner is guilty of intentionally prolonging the proceedings, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the present petition. 12. The present petition is dismissed. 13. Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.