IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.MP.No.21149 of 2025 S.Swarnalatha ...Petitioner Vs.

B.Hemalatha ...Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to set aside the order passed by the learned XXXV MM, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Annamalai

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated passed by the learned XXXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an accused facing trial in STC.No.8435 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, Chennai for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pursuant to the complaint made by the respondent/complainant alleging that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.9,80,000/- and issued a cheque dated 21.10.2023 towards discharge of the said liability, which was subsequently dishonored. He further submitted that since the respondent/ complainant, during the course of cross examination, admitted that she had pledged her jewels in order to mobilize the funds to lend money to the petitioner, the petitioner had earlier filed a petition under Section 94 of BNSS in Crl.MP.No.9855 of 2025, seeking to summon certain documents such as, statement of account from the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank in order to establish the pledging and subsequent redemption of the jewels by the de facto complainant. However, the trial Court, had dismissed the said petition, vide order dated 17.07.2025.

2.2 Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court in Crl.OP.No.23171 of 2025. However, this Court, vide order dated

21.08.2025, dismissed the said petition with an observation that if at all the petitioner intends to establish that there was no consideration, the petitioner ought to have at least issued a notice to the complainant to produce the relevant documents and in the event of non-production, the alternative option available to the petitioner is that she could have summoned a witness from the bank concerned and examined him in this regard and therefore, without resorting to such remedies, filing of an application under Section 94 BNSS is not maintainable.

2.3 Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the petitioner sent a notice to the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent/ complainant before the trial court as well as the respondent/complainant on 22.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 respectively, seeking production of the relevant documents pertaining to pledging of jewels, statement of accounts, Income Tax Returns of the respondent, etc. However, as the same evoked no response, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., seeking to examine the defence witness and to issue subpoena to the Manager of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Nungambakkam Branch. However, the learned XXXV Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai, vide order dated 29.10.2025, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the same has been filed only to drag on the proceedings. He also submitted that if the respondent/complainant fails to produce the said documents, adverse inference can be drawn. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

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

4. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:-

“Points:-

a) Heard both sides. This petition is filed for summoning of Bank Manager to establish pleading of jewels at Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Nungambakkam, Chennai on 05.05.2023. It is strongly objected by the respondent. On perusal of record, the case is in the stage of argument. The alle