Dismissed¶27

Yasin Ali v. M.S.Mohaideen Gnaniyar Ali

Madras HC10 Mar 2026CRL OP(MD)/5038/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cheque dishonour; Section 528 BNSS petition; recall petition; examination of additional witness; Director of Regional Office Coconut Development Board Coimbatore; relevance of evidence in NI Act trial; legally enforceable debt; insufficient funds; business versus personal purpose of borrowing; Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Negotiable Instrument Act Tirunelveli; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5038 of 2026; dismissal of challenge to rejection of witness summons.

What did the court decide?

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is for the complainant to prove that the amount was borrowed by the accused and that the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt and were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. ¶23

Yasin Ali Vs M.S.Mohaideen Gnaniyar Ali — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order dismissing the recall petition should be set aside and the trial court directed to summon the Director of Regional Office, Coconut Development Board, Coimbatore, to appear, produce documents and give evidence. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

There are no merits in the criminal original petition challenging the dismissal of the recall petition, and it stands dismissed.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

¶23

Key takeaways

Whether the accused borrowed the amount for business or personal purposes is not a relevant issue in a Section 138 proceeding; accordingly, examination of the Director of Regional Office, Coconut Development Board, Coimbatore, to prove business activity was unnecessary.ratio¶23
If the petitioner wishes to place on record documents relating to the accused's business, he may approach the Court with an appropriate application.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (R. Vijayakumar, J.) — Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5038 of 2026 (decided 10.03.2026): Dismissed a petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging the order dated 18.02.2026 in M.P.No.6 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.127 of 2023 (Section 138 NI Act complaint before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Negotiable Instrument Act, Tirunelveli), whereby the complainant's recall petition to examine the Director of Regional Office, Coconut Development Board, Coimbatore, was rejected. Held (¶23): in a Section 138 case the complainant need only prove the borrowing, issuance of cheques for a legally enforceable debt, and dishonour for insufficiency of funds; whether the borrowing was for business or personal purposes is not a relevant issue, so summoning the Director to prove the accused's business activity was unwarranted. Observed that the complainant may separately move the Court with an appropriate application to place business-related documents on record. Connected Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5385 of 2026 closed (¶28).

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5038 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

Crl.OP.(MD)No.5038 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5385 of 2026

¶7

Yasin Ali ...Petitioner

¶8

M.S.Mohaideengnaniyar Ali ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to call for the records relating to the order passed in M.P.No.6 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.127 of 2023, dated 18.02.2026 on the file of the learned Special Court

¶10

for Exclusive Trial of Negotiable Instrument Act, Tirunelveli, and set aside the same and consequently direct the learned trial Court to issue summons to the Director of Regional Office, Coconut Development Board, Coimbatore, to appear and produce the relevant documents and give evidence.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Maharaja

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5038 of 2026

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The present petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed in M.P.No.6 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.127 of 2023, dated 18.02.2026 on the file of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Negotiable Instrument Act, Tirunelveli, and consequently to direct the learned trial Court to issue summons to the Director of Regional Office, Coconut Development Board, Coimbatore, to appear and produce the relevant documents and give evidence.

¶17

2.The petitioner is the complainant in S.T.C.No.127 of 2023 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. While the trial was pending, the petitioner has filled recall petition seeking to examine the Director of Regional Office, Coconut Development Board, Coimbatore, in order to prove that the accused person is involved in business activities and only for the said business activities, he had borrowed money from the complainant. This application was dismissed on the ground that the examination of the Director of Regional Office, Coconut Development Board, Coimbatore, is no way connected with the complaint and there is no reference about the Council either in the complaint or the legal notice issued by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present application has been filed.

¶18

2/5

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5038 of 2026

¶21

3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the accused person has denied the fact that he has borrowed loan for the business purpose. Therefore, in order to prove that the accused person was involved in business activities and only for that purpose, he had borrowed loan from the petitioner, the present application has been fined seeking to examine the Director of Regional Office, Coconut Development Board, Coimbatore. He further submitted that it is necessary to establish that the accused is engaged in business activities .

¶22

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records.

¶23

5.As far as the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, it is for the petitioner to prove that the amount was borrowed by the accused and that the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt, which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Whether the accused borrowed the amount for business or personal purposes, is not a relevant issue. If the petitioner wishes to place on record documents relating to the accused’s business, it is for him to approach the Court with appropriate application. Hence, there are no merits in this petition.

¶24

3/5

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5038 of 2026

¶27

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶28

Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶29

10.03.2026