Dismissed¶24

U.Sasidharan v. C.Ravindran

Madras HC24 Feb 2025CRL OP/2553/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of witness; further cross-examination of PW.1; Section 311 CrPC petition dismissed by Trial Court; accused already extensively cross-examined PW.1; recall sought on new set of facts at defence-witness stage; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act trial in S.T.C. No. 221 of 2022; Section 528 BNSS petition; Madras High Court upholds Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonammallee order dated 05.08.2024; direction to complete trial within three months; connected Crl.M.P.No.1624 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the Trial Court was directed to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and the connected Crl.M.P.No.1624 of 2025 was closed. ¶24

U.Sasidharan Vs C.Ravindran — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2553 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.2553 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.1624 of 2025

¶7

U.Sasidharan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. C.Ravindran .. Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.N.S., to set aside the order in M.P.No.4168 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.221 of 2022 dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Poonammallee consequently allow the petition to recall the witness filed by the petitioner.

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This petition has been filed to set aside the order in M.P. No. 4168 of

¶12

2024 in S.T.C. No. 221 of 2022, dated 05.08.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Poonamallee, thereby dismissing the

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 4

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.2553 of 2025

¶15

petition to recall PW.1 for cross-examination.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C. No. 221 of 2022. The respondent was examined in chief and when the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW.1, the PW.1 was also examined extensively. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination on receipt of a new set of facts. Therefore, the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶18

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the matter was posted for further cross-examination of PW.1, the counsel for the petitioner could not cross-examine PW.1 since she suffered from Viral Fever. Therefore, the petitioner could not cross-examine PW.1. Hence, the evidence of the complainant's side was closed and the matter was posted for questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination.

¶19

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

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.2553 of 2025

¶22

5. Admittedly, the petitioner had extensively cross-examined PW.1.

¶23

Now, the petitioner seeks further cross-examination of PW.1 on a new set of facts, that too when the matter was posted for defence witness. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶24