Allowed¶24

V.K.P.Karmegam v. Karthikeyan

Madras HC7 Nov 2025CRL OP(MD)/14795/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of P.W.1 denied; marking of complainant's income tax returns with consent under Section 294 Cr.P.C where genuineness not disputed; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act trial (S.T.C. No.141/2016, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram); earlier petition Crl.M.P(MD) No.1007 of 2020 referenced; CRL OP(MD). No.14795 of 2025; Section 528 BNSS; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice Sunder Mohan; decided 07/11/2025.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed: the order dated 19.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.663/2024 in S.T.C. No.141/2016 is set aside, and the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram is directed to take the income tax returns on record under Section 294 of Cr.P.C and dispense with the examination of the respondent. ¶24

V.K.P.Karmegam Vs Karthikeyan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.663/2024 in S.T.C. No.141/2016 (Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram) dismissing the petitioner's application for recall of the respondent/P.W.1 should be set aside. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 19.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.663/2024 in S.T.C. No. 141/2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, dismissing the recall application, is set aside.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

In view of the submissions, and since the genuineness of the document sought to be marked is not disputed by the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram is directed to take the document (the respondent's income tax returns) on record under Section 294 of Cr.P.C and dispense with the examination of the respondent.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of BNSS (Madurai Bench) allowed. The order dated 19.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.663/2024 in S.T.C. No.141/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram, which had dismissed the petitioner's application to recall the complainant/respondent (examined as P.W.1 in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) for cross-examination and marking of his income tax returns (assessment year between April 2016 to March 2017), is set aside. Since the genuineness of the document sought to be marked is not disputed by the respondent and he has no objection to its being marked without examining him, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram is directed to take the document on record under Section 294 of Cr.P.C and dispense with the examination of the respondent.

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.14795 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 07/11/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.14795 of 2025

¶7

V.K.P.Karmegam ... Petitioner Vs Karthikeyan ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.663/2024 in S.T.C. No.141/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram ordered on 19.07.2024 and set aside to recall the witness of PW1 - Karthikeyan

¶9

for cross examination and marking of furnishing mentioned the loan in his I.T. returns documents and with the interest of justice and thus render and justice.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Babu Jaganath, For Respondent : Mr.R.Anand

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

CRL OP(MD). No.14795 of 2025

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.663/2024 in S.T.C. No.141/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram, by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application for the recall of the respondent, who was examined as P.W1 in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶16

2.The learned Magistrate had dismissed the said petition on the ground that in the earlier petition filed in Crl.M.P(MD) No.1007 of 2020 the petitioner had not stated that the documents sought for by him, which are the income tax returns of the respondent for the assessment year between April 2016 to March 2017 were necessary and that the petitioner had not made out any grounds for recalling PW1 for the marking of those documents.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the income tax returns has to be marked before the trial Court and that though the petitioner had sought for the recall of the respondent, he

¶18

2/5

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.14795 of 2025

¶21

would be satisfied if the documents are marked with consent under Section 294 Cr.P.C.

¶22

4.The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has no objection to the marking of the income tax returns of the respondent without examining the respondent.

¶23

5.In view of the submissions and since the genuineness of the document sought to be marked is not disputed by the respondent, the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.663/2024 in S.T.C. No. 141/2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, is set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, is directed to take the document on record under Section 294 of Cr.P.C and dispense with the examination of the respondent.

¶24

6.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶25

3/5

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP(MD). No.14795 of 2025

¶28

07.11.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No

¶29

SUNDER MOHAN,J