P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Accused-petititoner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to assail impugned orders dated 03.03.2017 and 24.06.2017, passed by Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court). The learned trial Court in a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has closed right of accused-petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on 03.03.2017. Later on, at the behest of petitioner an endeavor was made for reconsidering his prayer to permit him to cross-examine the complainant, but the same was also turned down by the learned trial Court on 24.06.2017. The learned trial Court, while rejecting the prayer of petitioner, has observed that the complainant appeared on eight occasions but was not cross-examined by counsel for the petitioner on one pretext or other. It is in that background, learned trial Court has declined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and also examined the alleged criminal delinquency of the petitioner, which is for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(3.) True it is, that it is the right of an accused to cross-examine complainant, but in the instant case accused has remained dormant for a considerable period despite appearance of the complainant, as such, the Court cannot excuse his deliberate omission, however, in exercise of inherent powers this Court can upset the order impugned for doing real and substantial justice in the matter for the administration of which alone Courts exist.;