Murugappan vs Ravichanthiran
2022 Latest Caselaw 17112 Mad

                                                                                    Crl.O.P.No.26251/2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 01.11.2022

                                                             CORAM

                                    THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA

                                                 Crl.O.P.No.26251 of 2022 &
                                                  Crl.M.P.No.16154 of 2022

                     Murugappan                                              ...           Petitioner

                                                                /vs/

                     Ravichanthiran                                           ...        Respondent

                     Prayer : The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482
                     Cr.P.C. to set aside the order made in CMP.No.3590 of 2022 on the file of
                     the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Gopichettiapalayam, Erode District.


                                       For Petitioner           ... Mr. Premkumar



                                                          ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside the order made in

CMP.No.3590 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,

Gopichettiapalayam, Erode District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26251/2022

2. The petitioner is the accused in the private complaint lodged by

the respondent against him for the offence under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act in STC.No.1298 of 2017. The petitioner had

filed a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C., in CMP.No.3590 of 2022 before

the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Gopichettiapalayam to reopen

and recall PW1 for cross examination and the said petition was dismissed.

Aggrieved over the same, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when PW1

was cross examined at the fist instance, the petitioner was not able to get

certain documents and the petition has been field to recall PW1 to confront

him the documents now available with him. It is further submitted that the

learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have allowed the petition in the

interest of justice.

4. Records would show that the petition has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., before the court below. The case

in STC.No.1298 of 2017 was reserved for judgment by the learned trial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26251/2022

Judge after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides. In the petition

filed by the petitioner, he did not state specifically anything about the

documents he had got in order to reopen the case and to recall PW1 . If the

petitioner was not given with sufficient opportunity, we can find a reason

to allow the petition. The manner in which the petition has been filed after

the case was reserved for judgment would only show that the petition

under section 311 of Cr.P.C., has been filed to drag on the proceedings to

the extent possible. The learned Judicial Magistrate also recorded the

same reasons and observed the bald nature in which the petition has been

filed and chosen to dismiss the same. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate

has rightly dealt with the merits of the matter and passed the order, I find

no reasons for interference in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

Therefore this petition is dismissed.

01.11.2022

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No msr

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26251/2022

R.N.MANJULA, J.

msr

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Gopichettiapalayam, Erode District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.26251 of 2022

01.11.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis