1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Naveen V/s. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION No.1050/2010) S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code Date of Order :: July 05, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Kuldeep Sharma for the Petitioner. Mr. Javed Chaudhary PP for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 16.01.2010 and 30.03.2010. By the first order, the learned Trial Court had declined his application for given the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. The petitioner had challenged the said order before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. However, vide order dated 30.03.2010, the second order, the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition and has upheld the order dated 16.01.2010. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a complaint against the non-petitioner,Rajaram Naharia, for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Although, repeatedly opportunities were given to the petitioner 2 to cross-examine the complainant, namely, on 06.02.2009, 26.03.2009, 30.03.2009 and 26.05.2009, the petitioner had failed to cross-examine the complainant. Therefore, his right to cross-examination was closed. The petitioner had filed a revision petition challenging the said order. Vide order dated 27.10.2009, the learned revisional Court had granted another opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on 16.11.2009. But, despite being given this opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on 16.11.2009, the petitioner again failed to do so. Subsequently, the learned trial Court closed his right to cross-examine the complainant and dismissed his application, vide order dated 16.01.2010. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he again filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 30.03.2010, the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition and has upheld the order dated 16.01.2010. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the accused has a right to cross-examine the complainant. After all, the veracity of the complainant's statements can be scrutinized only on the basis of the cross-examination. Therefore, last opportunity should again be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveals that the petitioner was given four opportunities before his right to cross-examination was closed by the learned trial Court. Even subsequently, vide order dated 27.10.2009, the learned revisional Court had granted another opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on 16.11.2009. Despite the fact that a further opportunity was given, the petitioner chose not to utilize the said opportunity. Therefore, he cannot complain that his right to cross-examination is being denied to him. The Courts cannot go on showing indulgence to the petitioner, although he may be accused in the case. Therefore, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned orders. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition is also dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-