A request to summon documents under Section 91 CrPC/94 BNSS may be denied if the court finds that the accused is intentionally protracting the trial proceedings through repeated delays and failure to produce witnesses.

ORDER

This criminal original petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 12.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1509 of 2025 in S.T.C.No. 58 of 2022 by the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, Tirupathur District.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint preferred by the respondent, a case in S.T.C.No.58 of 2022 was taken on file by the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, Thirupathur District. During pendency of the said case, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C./94 of BNSS to summon the production of bank statement and IT returns of the complainant for the purpose of cross examination of P.W-1 which are vital documents to prove the case of the petitioner. However, without considering the request of the petitioner and without assigning any reasons, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said petition by order dated 12.02.2026. Challenging the said order, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order dated 12.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1509 of 2025 in S.T.C.No. 58 of 2022 by the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, Tirupathur District.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.58 of 2022 facing trial which is prosecuted by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he had filed Crl.M.P.No.1509 of 2025 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C./94 of BNSS, to summon the income tax returns and the bank statement of the complainant which was negatived and the petition was dismissed. In paragraphs 2 and 3 the trial Judge had given how the petitioner had been protracting the proceedings and the petitioner not made out the case challenging the wherewithal of the complainant and hence the petition has been dismissed. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

"2. On 20.11.2023, the complainant closed his witnesses and the matter was posted for examination of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2024. On that date, the accused merely stated that the prosecution evidence was false, and the case was posted for defence evidence. Thereafter, the accused filed a petition under Section 315 Cr.P.C. on 22.02.2024, which was posted for 01.03.2024 and was kept pending. On the same date, the accused filed another petition under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C., which was considered on 07.03.2024 and allowed on 22.03.2024. The matter was thereafter posted for defence witnesses (DWs) on 04.04.2024, and summons were issued to the witnesses suggested by the accused.

3. However, despite repeated opportunities, none of the defence witnesses appeared before the Court on the following dates: 02.05.2024, 17.05.2024, 14.06.2024, 25.06.2024, 19.07.2024, 05.08.2024, 05.09.2024, 26.09.2024, 06.11.2024, 03.12.2024, 23.01.2025, 11.03.2025, 29.04.2025, 15.05.2025, 13.06.2025, 11.07.2025 and 01.08.2025."

5. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to entertain this Criminal Original Petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.