IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.O.P.No.2175 of 2026 A.Manickam ..Petitioner Vs P.Balasubramaniam ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set-aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Pollachi, in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.946 of 2016, dated 19.01.2026.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated

19.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.946 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Pollachi, dismissing the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.W-1 for the purpose of cross-examination.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an accused facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has not cross-examined P.W-1 and hence, he filed the petition to recall P.W-1 for the purpose of cross-examination. However, the trial Judge, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, had dismissed the application. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order of the trial Judge.

4. The discussion of the learned trial Judge, while arriving at the decision, reads as under:

"8. It is seen that both the petitions have been preferred to reopen and recall the complainant side evidence to cross-examine PW-1. On the contrary, the respondent/complainant has filed a counter vehemently objecting to the petitions.

9. A perusal of the note papers would reflect that the complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused alleging dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. Cognizance was taken by this Court on 20.04.2016. The trial commenced on 12.08.2016. The complainant examined himself as P.W-1 on 16.12.2016.

10. Thereafter, from 2016 till 04.03.2021, the case was posted on several hearing to provide opportunity to the accused, who is the petitioner herein, to cross-examine P.W-1. However, due to non-cross- examination, the chance of cross-examining P.W-1 came to be closed on

04.03.2021.

11. The case was thereafter posted on 12.03.2021, and the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Immediately thereafter, on the next hearing date, namely 25.03.2021, the petitioner preferred a petition to recall the complainant, that is P.W-1, to complete his cross-examination. However, the said petition came to be dismissed on 07.09.2022 for the reason that no reopening petition was filed along with it. The Court, while dismissing the petition, clearly observed that it was dismissed only due to procedural lapse.

12. Despite the dismissal, the petitioner did not take any steps to reopen and recall the complainant's side evidence by curing the defect. Instead, the petitioner preferred petitions only to reopen and recall the defence side evidence, which had already been closed earlier.

13. It is also pertinent to point out that, even after reopening the defence side evidence, till date no defence evidence has been adduced on the side of the accused. only on 28.08.2025, the present petitions came to be filed by the petitioner praying for the above-mentioned relief.

14. A reading of the note papers would clearly establish the intention and mala fide conduct on the part of the petitioner/accused to only drag on the proceedings. It would defeat the object of the Act and is against he interest course of justice. Despite a similar petition having been dismissed earlier in the year 2022, and despite the observation of the Court regarding the procedural defeat, the accused failed to take steps to file a proper petitioner after curing the defect.

15. The conduct of the accused in filing the present petitions at this belated stage clearly establishes that the same have b