IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

and

Crl.MP.No.23648 of 2025

S.Saravanan ...Petitioner

Vs.

C.Navaneethan ...Respondent

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to

call for the records relating to the proceedings of the order in CMP.No.12 of 2025 in STC.No.176 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,

Komarapalayam, Namakkal District and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugabharathi

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the

order dated 05.11.2025 passed in CMP.No.12 of 2025 in STC.No.176 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Komarapalayam, Namakkal

District.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

2.1 The petitioner is an accused facing trial in S.T.C.No.176 of 2021 (private complaint) filed by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent/complainant alleged that the petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from him and in discharge of the said liability, issued a cheque bearing no.025755 dated 07.07.2021 drawn on ICICI Bank, Erode Branch in his favour. The cheque, when presented by the respondent/complainant for collection, was dishonoured and hence, the respondent/complainant issued a legal notice. However, the petitioner/accused neither sent a reply to the legal notice nor repaid the cheque amount and hence, the complaint was filed.

2.2. During trial, the respondent/complainant was examined as P.W.1 and the petitioner/accused cross-examined him (P.W.1). Alleging that the respondent/complainant had stated that he is ready to produce his income tax returns and later, did not produce the same, and contending that details like PAN, Aadhaar Card number and name of the auditor of the respondent/ complainant are necessary to rebut the case of the respondent/complainant, the petitioner/accused filed an application in CMP.No.12 of 2025 under Section 91 Cr.P.C./94 of the BNSS, to direct the respondent/complainant to produce the same.

2.3. Before the Trial Court, the respondent/complainant filed a counter affidavit and the Trial Court, by order dated 05.11.2025, dismissed the above petition, challenging which, the instant criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the respondent/complainant, notwithstanding his deposition in the cross- examination on 26.05.2025 that he would file his income tax returns, in the cross-examination on 02.06.2025, had retracted his earlier deposition on 26.05.2025 and deposed that he would inform after getting instructions from his auditor; in such circumstances, the production of the above documents is necessary and desirable for the purpose of trial and hence, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the petition.

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

5. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. Of course, as per Section 91 Cr.P.C., whenever any Court considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial, summons may be issued requiring production of the same. However, before issuing the summons, a duty is cast upon the Trial Court to consider whether the production of such document or thing is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial.

6. In the case on hand, the respondent/complaint was cross-examined on 26.05.2025 and 02.06.2025. The relevant portions of the cross-

examination of P.W.1 are extracted below for ready reference:

26.05.2025:

“

////// ehd; tUkhd thp brYj;jp tUfpnwdh vd;why ; Mkhk;/ ehd;d vjphpf;F vzk; bfhLj;jij vdJ tUkhdthp fzf;fpy; brhy;ypapUf;fpnwdh vd;why; "hgfkpy;iy/ me;j tUlk ; jhf;fy ; bra;j tUkhdthp fzf;if ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;a jahuhf ,Uf;fpnwdh vd;why ; vdJ fzf;fPl;lhsiu nfl;lhy ; jhd; bjhpa[k;/ vdJ fz;ffpl;lhsh; me;j tUlj;jpw;fhf tUkhd thp jhf;fy ; bra;j efypid vd;dplk; bfhLj;Js