SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
Ajay Padayyapan Sethupathyar – Appellant
Versus
Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition | Crl. M.P. No.842 of 2026 | STC No.7794 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for Mr.J.Manikandan
For the Respondents: Gopal Vyas

The court clarified that procedures under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be conducted expeditiously, reinforcing that delays without valid reasons warrants dismissal of petitions.

Headnote:This judgment involves a Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed to challenge an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The court found the request to recall witness lack legitimate grounds, reflecting an intention to delay proceedings. It upheld the trial court’s finding that the petitioner's actions were aimed at protracting the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the necessity of expedience in these proceedings per Section 143 of the Act. The final ruling affirmed dismissal.

Table of Content
1. challenge to trial court order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's findings on petitioner's conduct. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 11.02.2026 passed in Crl. M.P. No.842 of 2026 in STC No.7794 of

2024, by the learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that upon careful screening of the oral and documentary evidence at the stage of final arguments, certain vital and material aspects came to light which went to the very root of the prosecution case, particularly, concerning the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and hence, the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.842 of 2026 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall P.W-1 for the purpose of further examination. The said petition was dismissed by order dated 11.02.2026 challenging which this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

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

4. At the outset, it is apt to extract the findings of the learned trial Judge while dismissing the petition which are as follows:

"6(v).

On perusal of records, the case was filed by the Respondent/Complainant against the accused for commission of alleged offence u/s. 138 of N.I. Act. The case is pending for accused side argument. At this juncture the petitioner filed this petition to recall PW1. In this case on 05.04.2025 the Respondent/Complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P12 and the case was adjourned for PW1 cross examination on 22.05.2025, 05.06.2025, 13.06.2026 and 30.06.2026. On 30.06.2025 PW1 evidence was closed and posted for defence side evidence. It is further evident that after that on 08.07.2025 the Petitioner/Accused reported no defence evidence and recorded and the case was adjourned for both side arguments on 17.07.2025.

6(vi). On 17.07.2025 the Petitioner/Accused filed petition u/s. 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the PW1 for the purpose of cross- examination on the petitioner side and this same was allowed upon the Respondent/Complainant reported no counter and the case adjourned 02.08.2025 for PW1 cross-examination. After that the case was adjourned for three hearing 08.08.2025, 14.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 for the purpose of cross-examination. But, the Petitioner/Accused is not ready to cross exam the PW1 and this court is closed PW1 evidence and adjourned for defence evidence on 15.09.2025. On 15.09.2025 the Respondent/Complainant filed Memo stating that the name of the accused and address of the accused changed and to be recorded and ordered to amend the complaint and the same day the accused side is reported no defence evidence and the case was adjourned on 30.09.2025 and then the case adjourned for amendment, carryout amendment and APC for few hearing and then the case was posted for u/s. 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. questioning on 07.11.2025 and 13.11.2025, u/s.313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. questioning was heard on 13.11.2025 and the case was adjourned defence witness on 20.11.2025, 06.12.2025 and 12.12.2025 and then 12.12.2025 defence evidence once again closed by this court suomotto and the case was posted for arguments on 19.12.2025 and 03.01.2026. On 03.01.2026 the Respondent/Complainant side arguments heard and filed written argument on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant. At this juncture once again, the Petitioner/Accused came up along with u/s. 145(2) of N.I Act and r/w 311 of Cr.P.C petition for recalling the PW1 for the purpose of cross examination and the same was numbered on 28.01.2026. (Emphasis supplied by this Court)

6(vii). On perusal of the above proceeding it is evident that the Petitioner/Accused with intention to drag on the proceedings for filing similar petition without any valid reasons and could not utilize opportunity granted by this court."

5. From the above order, it is very clear that the petition in Crl.M.P.No.842 of 2026 under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top