The fundamental right to a fair trial does not allow the reopening of evidence when prior applications have been adequately resolved.

O R D E R

Dated this the 06^th day of October, 2025 The petitioner is the accused in S.T No.1495 of

2015 pending on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam. The case originated from the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent, alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the petitioner. This Crl.M.C is filed aggrieved by Annexure 2 order of the trial court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was filed to recall the complainant (PW1) and confront him with the charge framed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kollam in C.C. No.2116 of 2017. The said case also pertains to the crime registered against the petitioner at the instance of the 1^st respondent alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in relation to the same transaction. The allegations made by the 1^st respondent in that crime are entirely different from the allegations in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . Therefore, it is highly essential for the petitioner's defence to confront the complainant with the court charge in C.C. No.2116 of 2017. It is contended that, denial of opportunity to confront the complainant and mark the court charge, militates against the fundamental rule of fair trial guaranteed to the accused.

3. In spite of the appealing arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial court. A perusal of the order reveals that, raising the very same contentions and seeking reopening of evidence to mark a mediation agreement and the final report in C.C. No.2116 of 2017, the petitioner had earlier moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate having allowed that application only in part, by permitting to mark only the mediation agreement, the petitioner filed Crl.M.C No.11028 of 2024 before this Court, which also met with the same fate. Those orders were challenged before the Supreme Court, but the SLP was dismissed. Thereafter, in an attempt to get C.C. No.2116 of 2017 transferred from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam to be tried along with the instant case, the petitioner filed Tr.P(Crl.) No.36 of 2018 before this Court and the transfer petition was dismissed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the dismissal of the previous applications cannot stand in the way of the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C being allowed, since court had framed charge in C.C. No.2116 of 2017 only thereafter.

5. The contention cannot be countenanced since the earlier attempt to get the final report in the same case marked stands dismissed by the Magistrate and that order has attained finality by dismissal of the SLP filed before the Supreme Court. As rightly observed by the Magistrate, the case is of the year 2015 and by reason of the petitions filed one after the other, the case has not attained finality even after nine years. In such circumstances, I am also of the opinion that there is lack of bonafides in the prayer for confronting the complainant with the court charge in another case. Moreover, no useful purpose will be achieved by recalling PW1 for the purpose, since the question to be considered is only whether the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable liability and returned for want of funds in the account of the accused.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.