M.N. Bhandari, J.By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 24.1.2014 whereby application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The application was to allow the petitioner to cross examine the witness. It was declined in ignorance of the fact that cross examination could not be made in view of illness of the counsel. The impugned order may thus be quashed by giving one opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness. Reference of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in case of "Mohd. Hussain alias Zulfikar Ali v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)", [(2012) 2 SCC 584] and of this court in the case of "Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan", [2010 WLC (Raj) UC 14 and, lastly, in the case of "Harish @ Shekhar v. State of Rajasthan", [(2014(1) WLC (Raj) 286] has been given.

2. Learned PP so as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the petition.

3. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

4. It is a case where complaint was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 20.11.2006. On 20.7.2011 affidavit was filed in evidence. The petitioner was given 23 chances to cross examine the complainant and when he failed to do so, it was closed on 21.11.2013. The perusal of the petition does not show challenge to the fact regarding 23 chances to the petitioner to cross examine the complainant though, orally, learned counsel for petitioner submitted adjournments of the case on many occasions due to other reasons, however, aforesaid oral statement cannot be accepted in absence of any material and pleading. The order sheets could have been filed to prove it.

5. Reference of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and of this court has been given without considering the facts. In the instant case, chance to cross examine the complainant was not closed abruptly. A case cannot be kept pending indefinitely and at the mercy of the accused petitioner or his counsel. If sufficient opportunities have been given and the accused fails to cross examine the witness then I do not find any illegality to close chance of cross examination. None of the judgments referred by learned counsel for petitioner apply to the facts of this case. In the judgment of this court, chance to cross examine was closed after giving only two opportunities or so, thus petition therein was allowed permitting the petitioner to cross examine the witness. The facts of this case are alarming as petitioner failed to cross examine the witness even after taking 23 chances. Nothing has been produced by the parties to show illness of the counsel for the accused petitioner.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any error in the impugned order dismissing the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. The petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.