Ms Annapurna Caterers vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22580)
2025 Latest Caselaw 709 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 709 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ms Annapurna Caterers vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22580) on 9 May, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:22580]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3484/2025

M/s    Annapurna        Caterers,       Through        Proprietor     Vijay   Kumar
Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Ii-E-304, Jai Narain Vyas Colony, Bikaner.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.          Aarti Dariya W/o Anil Dariya, R/o Near Bal Vidhya
            Niketan, Sarvodaya Basti, Gajner Road, Bikaner.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Hari Shankar Shrimali
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

09/05/2025

1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under

Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following

reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to allow the instant petition and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by learned Spl. Judicial Magistrate N.I Act Cases Court No.3, Bikaner, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.1149/2015 to avoid abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.

Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of petitioner, may kindly be also passed."

2. The petitioner is facing trial before the Court of Special

Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.3, Bikaner for the offences

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

[2025:RJ-JD:22580] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3484/2025]

The criminal trial is pending against the present petitioner since

the year 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the

present case, the application filed by the complainant under

Section 311 Cr.P.C., was allowed by the learned trial Court vide

order dated 25.07.2024, while placing reliance upon the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Natasha Sinu

v. CBI" reported in 2013 RCC (SC) 421, and the documents

mentioned in the application were summoned from the bank. The

bank in compliance of order dated 25.07.2024 presented the

documents which were accepted as complainant's evidence and

were exhibited as exhibit P-9 and P-10. Learned counsel

submitted that after the documents summoned from the bank

were accepted in evidence as exhibit P-9 and P-10, the accused-

petitioner filed another application dated 29.03.2025 under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the bank official in the Court

for examination. Learned counsel submitted that cross-

examination of the bank official is essential to dispel doubts

apparent on the face of the bank records.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the application dated

29.03.2025 filed by the accused petitioner under Section 311

Cr.P.C. has been rejected vide order dated 16.04.2025. Aggrieved

by the same, the present criminal misc. petition under Section 528

BNSS has been moved on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the

material available on record.

6. The operative portion of the order dated 16.04.2025 reads as

under:-

[2025:RJ-JD:22580] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3484/2025]

"cgl mHk;i{kdkjku lquh xbZA nkSjkus cgl vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr@izkFkhZ us vius izkFkZuk i= dh iqujko`fr us dFku fd;k fd vf/koDrk ifjoknh@vizkFkhZ us fojks/k djrs gq, dFku fd;k fd vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls xokg dks ryc fd;s tkus dk dksbZ fof"k'V dkj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkosA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA U;k;ky; }kjk ryc fd;s tkus ij fnukad 21-02-2025 dks cSad ih ,u ch dh vksj ls nLrkost izLrqr gq, ftUgs cSadlZ cqDl ,ohMsal ,DV 1891 ds vuqlkj izekf.kr dj is"k fd;k x;k gSA ,sls nLrkost fcuk izkFkfed@ekSf[kd lk{; ds xkzg~; fd;s tk ldrs gSA /kkjk 5 cSadlZ cqDl ,ohMsal ,DV ds vuqlkj fo"ks'k dkj.k gskus ij gh fdlh Hkh cSad vf/kdkjh dks ryc fd;k tkuk pkfg,A vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ fo"ks'k dkj.k tkfgj dj U;k;ky; dks larq'V ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,sls esa vfHk;qDr@izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% vfHk;qDr@izkFkhZ dh vksj ls /kkjk 311 na-iz-lafgrk dk izkFkZuk i= fnukafdr 29-03-2025 vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA"

7. From the perusal of the case file, this Court prima facie finds

that the bank records relating to return of cheque allegedly issued

to the complainant by the accused-petitioner were summoned by

the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 which were

exhibited with the consent of both the parties before it as exhibit

P-9 and P-10. Prima facie, in the present case, there is no dispute

regarding signatures on the cheque or ownership with regard to

the bank account. The cheque was dishonored solely for the

reason that sufficient funds were not available in the bank account

owned by the accused-petitioner.

8. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has

committed no gross illegality or perversity while passing the