Rajasthan High Court
Tejkaran Meena Son Of Shri ... vs Ramavtar Meena Son Of Late Shri ... on 16 November, 2021
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6086/2021
Tejkaran Meena Son Of Shri Ramphool Meena, Resident Of
Village Siroli, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Ramavtar Meena Son Of Late Shri Bhonri Lal Meena, Resident Of
Village Nagariyawala, Opp. N.r.i Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Amit Jindal
For Respondent(s) : Mr.F.R.Meena, PP
Mr.Vikram Yadav, for complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment / Order
16/11/2021
The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioner Tejkaran, who happens to be the accused in criminal
proceedings pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, NI
Act Cases No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan Second, Jaipur in Cr. Case no.
740/2016 (Ramavtar Meena Vs. Tejkaran Meena)., for quashing of
the order dated 2.9.2021 whereby the prayer for adducing
evidence in defence has been declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer
made by him for giving another opportunity of adducing the
evidence has wrongly been rejected as the same was in
consonance with the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by this Court
in SBCr.MP No.6749/2018. He further contends that subsequent
order passed by this court in SBCr.MP No. 489/2019 passed on
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-6086/2021]
5.7.2021 would not be an impediment if another opportunity for
producing the defence would be given. He further urged that right
to give an opportunity to adduce his evidence is akin to
fundamental right, therefore, the petition may be allowed and
further an opportunity of adducing evidence may be directed.
Per contra, Mr.Vikram Yadav, counsel for the complainant has
vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. He
contents that several opportunities have been granted to the
petitioner but on one or the other pretext, he is trying to prolong
the trial of the case. He drew attention of the court towards the
observations made by this court in the orders dated 29.10.18,
5.7.2021 as well as order impugned, wherein the facts have been
incorporated regarding the conduct of the petitioner in his effort
for protraction of trial. Therefore, he submits that the petition may
be dismissed with heavy cost.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material
as made available by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the
order dated 5.7.2021 passed by this court, copy of which has been
supplied by the counsel for the complainant during the course of
hearing and the order dated 29.10.2018.
After going through the entire material, and the submissions
made by counsel for the parties, it appears that the respondent
herein launched a criminal prosecution against the petitioner
herein for accusation of committing the offence under the penal
provisions of NI Act in the year 2016. It is emerging from the facts
of the case that on 10.3.2018, statement of accused got recorded.
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-6086/2021]
Thereafter, six adjournments were sought but no witness was
examined in defence. On 16.7.2018, last opportunity was granted
to lead defence evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-.
On 6.8.2018, again no defence evidence was available and cost of
Rs.1,000/- was imposed. On 28.8.2018, neither the petitioner
deposited the cost nor brought any defence evidence, therefore,
the defence of the accused was closed vide order dated
19.9.2018.
The said order came to be assailed by the petitioner before
this court by way of filing criminal misc. petition No. 6749/2018
wherein showing a lenient view, this court vide its order dated
29.10.2018 had passed direction to the effect that one another
opportunity to lead defence be granted to the accused-petitioner;
subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/-. It has specifically been
ordered by this court that upon depositing of cost by the petitioner
within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order, the trial court; as per its convenience and calendar, shall fix
one date for examining the defence evidence. On that day, counsel
for the petitioner shall conclude the defence evidence, however, if
due to paucity of time, defence evidence is not concluded, the trial
court shall fix the next date as date for the same and accordingly
the criminal misc. petition was disposed of.
Pursuant to the order passed by this court in criminal misc.
petition no. 6749/2018, the trial court posted a date 18.1.2019 for
recording of defence evidence. On that day, the complainant, his
counsel as well as accused petitioner and his counsels were
present. However, no evidence was produced.
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-6086/2021]
After this, the accused petitioner on a subsequent date,
moved an application under Sec. 311 of the Cr.PC which was
dismissed and the same was assailed before this court by way of
filing the criminal misc. petition no. 489/2019. This court in the
afore-mentioned criminal misc. pet. no. 489/2019, vide its order
dated 5.7.2021 while taking into consideration the entire facts &
circumstances of the case, had dismissed the petition and
observed that if a further opportunity of leading defence evidence
would be given to the petitioner, it would tantamount to review of
its earlier order which would neither be in accordance with law nor
would be justifiable.
In my considered opinion, any order, contrary to the view
taken by this court vide order dated 5.7.2021 would surely
amounts to review/reconsideration of its earlier order without
there being any error on the face of record as the same is not
permissible under the law. Section 362 of the Cr.P.C clearly
restrains any such alteration or review of its earlier order. Apart
from this, the complainant launched the prosecution in the year
2016 and since 2018, trial has been kept pending for want of
defence evidence and the trial has been protracted only on
account of laches of the accused respondent. Though an accused
may have a fundamental right to defend his case, but at the same
time, the complainant too has a right to get speedy disposal of his
case. This court is satisfied that ample opportunity has been
granted to the accused-respondent to lead his defence and now
giving any further opportunity would be onerous to the rights of
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-6086/2021]
the complainant, therefore, no further opportunity to lead defence
evidence would be justified to be granted.
Therefore, in view of the above, the instant criminal misc.
petition, deserves to be dismissed; the impugned order dated
2.9.2021 does not require any interference by this court.
Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed with no order as to
cost.
The stay application is also disposed of.
( FARJAND ALI),J
SANDEEP RAWAT /23/62
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
