Madras High Court
Thiru.Baskaran vs / on 14 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.29490 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.29490 of 2024
& Crl.M.P.No.16494 of 2024
1. Thiru.Baskaran, Aged 65 years,
S/o. Dhamodaran,
residing at No.23, Ramya Nagar,
Madhanapuram,
Chennai-116.
2. M/s.Sri Devi Stores,
Rep by its Proprietor Baskaran,
No.325, Trunk Road,
Porur, Chennai – 600 116. ... Petitioners/Accused
/versus/
S.Mohan, A/33 years,
S/o. Subramani,
No.100, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Kattupakkam,
Chennai-600 116. ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act.,
pleased to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court, Poonamallee, dated 05.09.2024, in Crl.M.P.No.6175/2024 against
STC.No.1053 of 2021.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy
For Respondent : Ms.Meenakshi Sundaram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.29490 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order
passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonamallee, dated
05.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.6175 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.1053 of 2021, thereby
dismissed the application filed under Sections 311 & 315 of Cr.P.C to reopen
and examine the defence side witness.
2. The petitioners are the accused in the complaint lodged by the
respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I in
S.T.C.No.1053/2021. After questioning, when the matter was posted for
defence side witnesses, the petitioners filed petition for settlement. However,
the petitioners failed to settle the cheque amount to the complainant and
subsequently, filed petition under Sections 311 & 315 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the
defence side witnesses was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. At
this juncture, the petitioners once again filed an application for settlement.
Even after some time, the petitioners failed to settle the cheque amount and as
such once again the matter was posted for judgment. At this stage, the
petitioners filed an application under Sections 311 and 315 of Cr.P.C to reopen
the defence side witness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, in order to
putforth their defence, they may be given one more opportunity to examine the
witnesses. In similar circumstances, this Court allowed the petitioner to
examine the defence witnesses by reopening the complaint filed by one R.Jothi
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magistrate Level,
Poonamallee.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that, out of 40
hearings, the petitioners were absent for 13 hearings when the matter was
posted for judgments. With an intention to drag the proceedings, they filed an
application for settlement. However, they failed to settle the cheque amount
and once again, the matter was posted for judgment. Again, the petitioners filed
a petition for settlement. After five hearings, the petitioners failed to settle the
amount and as such, the trial Court posted the matter for judgment after
arguments. At this juncture, the petitioners filed this petition to recall and
reopen the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. On perusal of the records, it reveals that after the examination of
complainant side witnesses, the matter was posted for questioning under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At that juncture, the petitioners had filed an application
to reopen and recall P.W.1 which was allowed. P.W.1 was cross-examined and
thereafter, the matter was posted for defence side evidence. After four
hearings, the petitioners filed an application for settlement to settle the entire
cheque amount. Considering the same, the trial Court kept the matter pending
and given a chance for the petitioner to settle the cheque amount for four
hearings. However, the petitioners failed to settle the money and as such,
closed the defence side evidence and the matter was posted for arguments.
After arguments, when the matter was posted for judgment, the petitioners once
again filed an application to reopen for settlement.
6. Considering the above, the trial Court had given chance for the
petitioners for more than five hearings. Even then, the petitioners failed to settle
the cheque amount and as such, the trial Court posted the matter for judgment
to avoid the delay tactics of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed an
applications to settle the cheque amount on two occasions and drag the
proceedings for more than 10 hearings. Finally, when the matter was posted for
judgment, the petitioners filed an application under Sections 311 and 315 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cr.P.C., to reopen and recall the defence side witness and same was rightly
dismissed by the trial court. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the
order passed by the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The
trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of eight weeks, from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonamallee.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
bsm
14.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
