Allowed

Tamilselvi v. v.Palanisamy

Madras HC10 Oct 2023CRL OP(MD)/14424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a cheque bounce case, directing the petitioner to complete the procedure within the stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to cross examine P.W.1 again on payment of Rs.2,000; connected M.P. closed.

Tamilselvi Vs v.Palanisamy — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.14424 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.10.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.14424 of 2023 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.11366 of 2023

¶7

Tamilselvi ... Petitioner / Accused

¶8

Vs.

¶9

V.Palanisamy ... Respondent / complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records from the lower Court and set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.3178 of 2023 in C.C.No.73 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Dindigul District, dated 20.02.2023, by allowing this petition.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Riyaz

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition filed to call for the records from

¶14

the lower Court and set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.3178 of 2023 in C.C.No.73 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Dindigul District, dated 20.02.2023, by allowing this petition.

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P(MD)No.14424 of 2023

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, before the trial Court. He was cross examined by this petition on 06.02.2023 itself. After that the present application has been filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall the witness, PW.1, for further cross examination, on the ground that he has received documents of material nature, showing the transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant Palanisamy is running a company by name Shanthini Finance Limited at Dindigul. According to the petitioner, the transactions said to have existed between the respondent and the complainant is not true, whereas the transaction mentioned in the document is vital for deciding the issue.

¶19

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one more opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross examine P.W.1 in further, with regard to the above said documents on payment of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) before the trial Court. Let the trial Court be fix a date for appearance of the witnesses

¶20

2/4

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.O.P(MD)No.14424 of 2023

¶23

and on that date, the petitioner must cross examine them without delay. If any failure is noticed, on the part of the petitioner, the order of this Court will automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the Court, further right of cross examination will be forfeited. It is made clear that the above said trial process be completed within the time stipulated by this Court. If any difficulty arises in complying the directions, the trial Court is at liberty to approach this Court with appropriate request.

¶24

With this direction and liberty, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶25

10.10.2023 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No pnn To

¶26

The Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Dindigul District.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

3/4

¶29

Crl.O.P(MD)No.14424 of 2023

¶30

G.ILANGOVAN, J

¶31

pnn

¶32

Order made in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14424 of 2023

¶33

Dated 10.10.2023

¶34

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tamilselvi v. v.Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilselvi v. v.Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.N Vedhachalam Vs The Superintendent of Police

J.Arockiyamary Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ganesan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Pandi Selvi Vs The Superintendent of Police

Dinesh Kumar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Abdul Jabbar Vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Sub Collector