A Magistrate is empowered to refuse an application for summoning a witness if it is found that the application is made for the purpose of vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice.

COMMON ORDER

The petitioner in both the Criminal Original Petitions, is the second accused in C.C. No.5127 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Palpap Ichinichi Software International Private Limited, which is the first accused therein. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109, 120-B read with Sections 403, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the said case, charges were framed in the month of April 2017 and trial commenced in the month of December 2019.

2.Upon perusal of the e-Courts records, it is seen that the prosecution evidence was closed in the month of November 2024 and the case was thereafter posted for examination of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The examination under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was completed on November 25, 2025. Thereafter, the accused examined D.W.1 to D.W.4 on the defence side. It is further seen that the accused cross-examined P.W.28, and thereafter, on summons, P.W.28 was further examined on April 22, 2025. Thereafter, again the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. (Section 351(1)(b) of BNSS) on May 8, 2025. Thereafter, P.W.29 was examined on November 11, 2025 and the incriminating circumstances arising out of the said evidence were brought to the notice of the accused on November 18, 2025. Thereafter, the examination of the defence witness, namely D.W.4, was completed on January 30, 2026. Subsequently, P.W.27 was recalled at the instance of the accused side and was cross-examined on March 18, 2026. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments on March 27, 2026. It is learnt that at present, arguments were heard and the case is reserved for pronouncement of judgment.

3.In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No.3644 of 2026 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. (Section 348 of BNSS) seeking to reopen the case and recall P.W.28. The petitioner also filed another petition in Crl.M.P. No.3645 of 2026 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of subpoena to P.W.28 for production of the letter dated August 31, 2009. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed both the petitions on the ground that the Bank Officials had not accorded sanction to proceed against Mr.N.Chandran, the then Bank Manager, and that the alleged letter dated August 31, 2009 was not relevant for deciding the issue involved in the case. The Trial Court also took note of the direction issued by this Court to dispose of the case on or before December 31, 2025, by Order dated October 31, 2025 in Crl.O.P.No.17007 of 2025. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court dismissed both the petitions.

4.Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner / second accused, filed these Criminal Original Petitions.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) for the respondent.

6.This Court has perused the entire records.

7.The criminal case was registered in the year 2009. Charges were framed in the year 2017 and the trial commenced in the year 2019. The prosecution evidence was closed in the month of November 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner / accused filed petitions seeking reopening and recalling of evidence, and the same were allowed. Now, after closure of the defence side evidence, the case has been posted for pronouncement of judgment on May 22, 2026. P.W.28 was examined in the month of April 2025. Hence, this Court is of the view that the present petition seeking recall of P.W.28 has been filed only with an intention to protract and prolong the proceedings