IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.MP.No.198 of 2026 J.Senthil Prakash ...Petitioner Vs.

J.Nagarajan ...Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to set aside the said order dated 29.04.2025 in Crl.MP.No.837 of 2025 in CC.No.24 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi and consequently allow Crl.MP.No.837 of 2025 in CC.No.24 of 2021 in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velan

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.837 of 2025 in CC.No.24 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi and to consequently, allow the petition filed by the petitioner under section 311 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.MP.No.837 of 2025 seeking to recall P.W.1 for cross examination.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

The petitioner is an accused facing trial in CC.No.24 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 357 of Cr.P.C. before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the respondent/ complainant. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.MP.No.837 of 2025, seeking to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination. However, the trial court, vide impugned order dated 29.04.2025, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the same has been filed only to drag on the proceedings. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to some personal inconvenience, the petitioner was unable to cross-examine the respondent/complainant on the day when he was examined in chief and that the petitioner has certain valid questions to put to the respondent/ complainant and therefore, the petitioner has earlier filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed with costs of Rs.500/-. However, it is the respondent/complainant who did not co-operate for cross- examination and he never got into the witness box. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat on the request made by the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant before the trial court. However, the same ended in vain. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., seeking to recall P.W.1 for cross- examination, as the same is absolutely necessary, in order to enable the trial court to arrive at a just and reasonable decision and the delay caused in filing the present recall petition is neither wilful nor wanton. However, the trial Court, without considering any of the above said facts, had dismissed the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which is not sustainable. He further submitted that if the petitioner is not permitted to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination, he would be put to grave hardship. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2025.

4. This Court gave its careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. The facts are not in dispute. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:

“5. The Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vined Kumar sharma Vs state of Punjab 2015 3 SCC 220, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held in Para 59.4 :

"In fact, it is not at all appreciable to call a witness for cross examination ofter such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in- chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is Inconceivable in law that the cross- examination should be deferred for such a long time. It i