1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Bharat Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan & anr. SB CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.120/2009. UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. DATE OF ORDER: 4th May, 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Ms. Gayatri Rathore for the petitioner. Mr. N.R. Saran PP for the State. Mr. Anil Upman for respondent no.2. This misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. Has been filed against the order dated 19th August, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur city, Jaipur whereby the revisional court confirmed the order dated 2nd August, 2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.23, Jaipur city, Jaipur dismissing the application of the petitioner moved under section 91 Cr.P.C. Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of the present misc. petition are that a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the respondent aganst the petitioner, cognizance of the complaint was taken, evidence in the case was recorded, application under section 91 Cr.P.C. was moved before the trial court which was rejected by the trial court holding that on 24.10.2007 with similar relief, application was moved, that was rejected. The order of the trial court dated 2nd 2 August, 2008 was challenged before the revisional court. The revisional court vide order dated 19th August, 2008 dismissed the revision petition. Hence, the present misc. petition against the said order has been filed. It is contended that the trial court has committed illegality in dismissing the application. Learned counsel submits that in fact the amount of cheque in question was already paid and this fact was mentioned by the complainant in his diary, therefore, to do justice, it was essential to allow the application. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan- 2006(2) RLR 245. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that on previous occasion also in relation to the similar relief, application was rejected. It is also contended that when the complainant was examined in the court, not even a suggestion was put to him in relation to the diary which the petitioner wants to be produced by the complainant in the court. It is submitted that there does not exist any such diary. It is contended that the matter is pending for years in the trial court and now the evidence has been completed. I have considered the submissions made before me and have perused the orders passed by the learned courts below. The contention of the learned counsel requires to be rejected for the simple reason that earlier for similar relief, an 3 application of the petitioner was rejected and that order was not assailed any further. It further appears from the perusal of the impugned orders that when the complainant was cross-examined, not even a single question was put to him in relation to the diary which was sought to be required in the case and the complainant is required to be examined in that regard. In the above circumstances, the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to her. The misc. petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the misc. petition is dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) BBLM