ORDER : MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J. 1. The instant Misc. Petition under Sections 528 BNSS (482 Cr.PC.) have been filed against the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act No.4, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 3288/2018, whereby the learned magistrate has closed the cross-examination before its completion by the counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of this petition is that the respondent-complainant had submitted a complaint in the year 2018 for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act with the allegation that the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent-complainant for Rs.9,96,000/- has been dishonoured by the concerning bank with the remark “Funds Insufficient” thereafter taking cognizance of the offence, process was issued and the petitioner accused appeared before the Court concerned. On several occasions, while allowing cross-examination, the counsel for the petitioner couldn’t make himself available before the court concerned and the matter got adjourned with a direction to be present before the court on the next day at 10:30 a.m. Thereafter, when the counsel for the petitioner was supposed to do the cross- examination, he again insisted on passing over the matter, citing prior commitments. Subsequently, the learned trial Court closed the right of the accused to cross- examine the complainant. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 reveals that despite availment of several effective opportunities, the petitioner did not cross-examine the complainant, which led the learned Magistrate closing the cross- examination on the ground that the Co-ordinate bench of this court has directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial of the case and disposed of the same preferably within 10 months. 4. The order (supra) caused grievance to the petitioner and led him to institute an application for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.08.2025 and allowing the cross-examination of the complainant. The grounds, as urged therein for quashing of the impugned order (supra), are that the cross-examination of the complainant-respondent no. 2 is already completed in 2 pending cases arising out of similarly situated private complaints. The grounds, as urged therein for quashing of the impugned order (supra), are that the cross-examination of the complainant-respondent no. 2 is already completed in 2 pending cases arising out of similarly situated private complaints. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the cross-examination could not be completed on 18 th and 19 th August, 2025 on account of serious illness of father of the petitioner’s counsel and his prior commitments in other courts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his asking for the relief (supra), besides reiterating the submissions, as carried in the application for quashing of the impugned order, makes submissions that the most important and prime witness, in a trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is none else than the complainant himself, therefore, any denial to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine such a prime witness would tantamount to denying him the right to a fair trial, besides would violate his fundamental right, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Citing “audi alteram partem” to be the most fundamental principle of natural justice, the learned counsel for the petitioner implores one effective opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. Moreover, the failure to cross-examine the complainant was not at all attributable to the present petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Complainant has contended that the case has been hanging fire since 2018. The case pertains to dishonour of a cheque and accordingly a co-ordinate bench of this court has ordered the learned trial court to expedite the case preferably within 10 months. Therefore, it should be concluded as soon as possible. Repeatedly, the complainant has appeared before the trial court and has left the court without cross-examination. In case the respondent-complainant is repeatedly asked to appear before the court, it may lead to delay in conduct of trial which would also amount to violation of complainant’s right to speedy trial. Keeping these factors in mind, the learned Judge was justified, in closing the right of cross-examination. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 8. Keeping these factors in mind, the learned Judge was justified, in closing the right of cross-examination. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 8. Before evincing any opinion upon the validity of the impugned order (supra), or, upon the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it imperative to catch a glimpse of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. “138. Order of examinations. –– Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross- examination must relate to relevant facts. Still, the cross- examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination. –– The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.” 9. Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act allows a party to cross- examine witnesses. The main objective of cross-examination is to reveal hidden facts and truths, helping to establish the defence case. It also aims to challenge the credibility of witnesses. Far from being just a technicality, cross-examination is a crucial method for the accused to undermine prosecution testimony and assert their innocence, ensuring the right to a fair trial is protected. 10. The case presented by the complainant is primarily based on his own statement. Consequently, if the petitioner is denied the valuable right to cross-examine the complainant, it would constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. This denial would hinder the petitioner’s ability to effectively present his defence and would lead to compromising his right to a fair trial. For justice to prevail, trials must be conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity. A trial is considered fair only when both parties are allowed to rebut adverse evidence, which includes the fundamental right to cross-examination. Oral evidence from a witness is not complete unless subjected to cross-examination, as this process serves as a vital check that can discredit the witness’s testimony and credibility. 11. A trial is considered fair only when both parties are allowed to rebut adverse evidence, which includes the fundamental right to cross-examination. Oral evidence from a witness is not complete unless subjected to cross-examination, as this process serves as a vital check that can discredit the witness’s testimony and credibility. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also time and again emphasised that cross-examination is integral to the process of eliciting truth, testing the veracity of the evidence, and safeguarding the rights of the accused. In the case of Mohd. Hussain @ Zulfikar Ali vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) 2012(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 303 : (2012) 2 SCC 584 wherein the court held that: “the fate of the criminal trial depends upon the truthfulness or otherwise of the witnesses and, therefore, it is of paramount importance. To arrive at the truth, its veracity should be judged and for that purpose, cross- examination is an acid test. It tests the truthfulness of the statement made by a witness on oath in examination-in- chief. Its purpose is to elicit facts and materials to establish that the evidence of the witness is fit to be rejected" 12. The Co-ordinate bench of this court, as well as the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Subhash Jhanwar Vs. Arvind Nuwal and Ors , S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 1603 of 2023 and Soniya Dutta Vs. STL Global Pvt Ltd (M/s), CRM-M No. 55367 of 2019 , respectively, have categorically stated that the right to cross-examine is fundamental to a fair trial and its denial violates the principles of natural justice. 13. After reviewing the entire material, I believe that the learned Magistrate has not erred in rejecting the petitioner's request. However, given the continuous delays in cross-examination, penalties may be imposed on the petitioner. Nevertheless, this should not deprive him of his right to defend himself, as the right to cross-examine is fundamental to that defence. Although ample opportunities have been afforded, still, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner by penalising him to deposit a cost. 14. The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the complainant. However, this opportunity is contingent upon the payment of costs amounting to Rs. 10,000. The petitioner must deposit this sum forthwith with the learned trial court, after which the court shall disburse the amount to the complainant. 14. The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the complainant. However, this opportunity is contingent upon the payment of costs amounting to Rs. 10,000. The petitioner must deposit this sum forthwith with the learned trial court, after which the court shall disburse the amount to the complainant. The learned trial court will then schedule a day for the recall of the complainant for cross- examination. The petitioner shall commence and conclude the cross- examination on the same day. It is further stipulated that failure to comply with these requirements will result in the petitioner not receiving any further opportunities. 15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases No.4, Bhilwara, in Criminal Case Nos. 3288/2018 is hereby quashed and set aside for the reasons mentioned above. The stay petition also stands disposed of.