The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to set aside an order closing evidence and allow the recall of a witness for cross-examination, subject to reasonable costs, to ensure the ends of justice.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------CRL.MC No. 11096 of 2023 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 9th day of September, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in CC No.845/2017 onthe file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur (‘Trial Court’), which has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1st respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act.

It is the case of the petitioner that due to theabsence of his Counsel, the Trial Court closed theevidence of the 1st respondent (PW1), complainant.

Although the petitioner filed an application toreopen the evidence, to cross examine PW1, the same has been dismissed by Annexure A3 order. Annexure A3 order is exfacie erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, thisCrl.M.C.

I have heard the learned Counsel for thepetitioner, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent andthe learned Public Prosecutor.

When this Crl.M.C. came up for consideration on20.12.2023, this Court stayed further proceedings in the complaint subject to the condition that the petitioner pays the 1st respondent Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent acknowledgesthe receipt of the said amount.

A reading of the impugned order substantiatesthat the examination in chief of PW1 was conducted on 04.03.2023. Thereafter, the complaint was adjourned for cross examination of PW1 to 16.03.2023. However, though the complaint was posted on six posting dates on which PW1 was present, he was not cross examined due to one reason or the other put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner. Taking into consideration the fact that PW1 is septuagenarian and that he was put to hardship and inconvenience, the Trial Court dismissed the application to reopen the evidence and cross examine PW1. Although I am not fully satisfied of the reason stated by the petitioner in the application to reopen the evidence and recall PW1 for the purpose of his cross examination, taking into consideration the fact that this Court has already directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost and also taking a lenient view in the matter, but subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a further amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost to mitigate the hardship and inconvenience caused to the 1st respondent, I am inclined to exercise the inherent power of this Court under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow theCrl.M.C. by setting aside Annexure A3 order and allowing CMP No.4039/2023 pending before the Trial Court, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays Rs.5,000/- to the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent before this Court and files a memo to the effect along with a copy of this order before the Trial Court within a week from today. If such memo along with this order is produced before the Trial Court, the Trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to cross examine PW1 on the date fixed by the Trial Court. The petitioner/his Counsel shall cross examine PW1 on the very same daythat PW1 is present before the Trial Court.

Considering the fact that the complaint is of theyear 2017, I direct the Trial Court to consider and dispose the complaint, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within an outer time limit of twomonths from the date of appearance of PW1.