Vishal Sen vs Divya Upadhyay
2022 Latest Caselaw 2525 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3/2022

Vishal Sen S/o Sh. Murlidhar Ji, Aged About 44 Years, F-129, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

Divya Upadhyay W/o Sh. Pradeep Upadhyay, Mangilal Ji Ka Barla, Naya Bazar, Near Imali Wale Balaji, Kankroli, Teh. And Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

11/02/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC

has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the

order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Special Judicial

Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Rajsamand (for short 'the

trial court'), whereby the application preferred on behalf

of the petitioner under Section 311 CrPC for allowing him

to produce defence evidence has been rejected.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3/2022]

The petitioner is facing trial in a complaint filed

against him by the respondent under Section 138 of the

N.I. Act. The statements of the petitioner under Section

313 CrPC were recorded on 5.1.2015 and he was granted

opportunity of producing defence evidence. On

31.1.2015, the petitioner was granted last opportunity to

produce his defence evidence, however, he failed to

produce the same and on 19.2.2015, 17.3.2015,

16.4.2015 and 4.5.2015, he was again granted

opportunity to produce his defence evidence, however,

when the petitioner has failed to do so, the said

opportunity was closed by the trial court vide order dated

18.5.2015. It appears that thereafter the petitioner has

absconded and remained absent before the trial court up

to 20.8.2019.

Thereafter, the petitioner has moved an application

under Section 311 CrPC with a prayer to allow him to

produce his defence evidence.

The trial court after taking into consideration the

overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly

the absence of the petitioner for more than four years

from the trial has rejected the said application.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after perusing the material available on record, I do not

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3/2022]

find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the

trial court.

Hence, this criminal misc. petition being bereft of

any force is hereby dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

38-Pratibha

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)