Accused in a cheque dishonour case challenged the dismissal of their petition to recall D.W-1 and file additional proof affidavit and documents. The High Court found the accused had ample opportunity while examining five defence witnesses and upheld the trial court's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL OP No. 6187 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL OP No. 6187 of 2026 and Crl.O.P.No.4584 of 2026
Vs
Nithiyanandam ..Respondent
PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal District in CMP.No.7 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.801 of 2024.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Vasudevan
ORDER
The present Criminal Original Petition is filed to set aside the order dated
31.07.2025 passed in CMP.No.7 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.801 of 2024 by the
Page 1 of 4
CRL OP No. 6187 of 2026
learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal District.
the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in S.T.C.No.801 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal. The second petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall D.W-1 to file additional proof affidavit and additional document on his side. The trial Court, by order dated 31.07.2025 had dismissed the same. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.
Page 2 of 4
CRL OP No. 6187 of 2026
Namakkal District in CMP.No.7 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.801 of 2024.
were given sufficient opportunity. The complainant side evidence closed and documents marked and thereafter, the second petitioner had examined five witnesses including himself. When examining five witnesses, he had not put any questions to D.W-2, D.W-4 the Bank Manager or D.W-5 with regard to the contentions raised now. Further, the trial Court had observed that almost one year time has been taken by the petitioners to produce defence witness and again filing this petition is nothing but further protracting the proceedings.
11-03-2026
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRM
__________ Page 3 of 4
CRL OP No. 6187 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
SRM
To
The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal District
CRL OP No. 6187 of 2026
11-03-2026
__________ Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the petition under Section 311 CrPC to recall D.W-1 for filing additional proof affidavit and documents in a Section 138 NI Act trial.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s.UVS Pharmaceuticals (Rep. by its Proprietor and authorized signatory A.Paulraj)
A.Paulraj
Nithiyanandam
M. Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
