Madras High Court
V.Rameshkumar vs Chellappan Kandasamy on 27 October, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
CRL OP No. 29098 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
CRL OP No. 29098 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.19728 of 2025
V.Rameshkumar
Petitioner(s)
Vs
Chellappan Kandasamy
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNS
to set aside the order dated 04.08.2025 made in CMP.No.174 of 2025 in
STC.No.153 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court (ML), Dharmapuri by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. N. Manokaran
For Respondent: Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Govt. Advocate (crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )
CRL OP No. 29098 of 2025
ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast
Track Court(ML), Dharmapuri, in Crl.MP No.174 of 2025, dated 04.08.2025,
the present petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner is facing trial in STC.No.153 of 2021 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (ML), Dharmapuri for the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. In the said case, the petitioner had filed a petition in CMP No.174 of
2025 seeking to summon the Branch Manager of Federal Bank, Alagapuram
Branch, Salem, to produce certain documents relating to the firm run by the
petitioner and another. The respondent had filed a counter stating that the
petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings. Upon consideration, the
Trial Court had dismissed the petition, finding that it had been filed only to
delay the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been
filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
had been diligently following the case. Earlier, though a petition under Section
243(2) Cr.P.C. has been ordered, as the Bank manager had not appeared before
the Court with relevant documents, the petitioner was unable to examine him.
Hence, the present petition had been filed, whereas the Trial Court found that
the petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings and accordingly
dismissed the same.
5. I have heard both sides and perused the materials available on record
carefully.
6. Admittedly, in STC.No.153 of 2021, trial commenced in the year 2021
itself and the petitioner had earlier filed an application in Crl.M.P. No.21 of
2025 to summon the Bank Manager of Federal Bank, Alagapuram, Salem,
which was allowed. When the Manager had appeared before the Court, he was
not examined and thereafter, he had been sent back. Subsequently, the petitioner
filed another petition in Crl.M.P. No.174 of 2025 seeking the same relief. Even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )
in the said petition, the petitioner has not mentioned what specific documents
are required to be produced by the Bank Manager. The Trial Court, therefore,
rightly found that the petition has been filed unnecessarily only to delay the
proceedings and dismissed.
7. This Court also perused the adjudication notes/document order. On
perusal, it is seen that the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been
completed as early as 01.11.2022. Thereafter, the case was posted for several
hearings, but the accused failed to appear before the Court. He had also filed a
petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. Further, on perusal of
the petition, it is seen that the petitioner has not explained why it is necessary to
examine the Bank Manager. If the petitioner intends to prove his financial
status, he could very well examine himself as a defence witness. It is also
admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case now stands
posted on 04.11.2025 for judgment. The conduct of the petitioner clearly
indicates that the petition has been filed only to protract the trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )
8. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and
finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
9. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27-10-2025
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mrp
To
The Judicial Magistrate
Fast Track Court (ML)
Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.
mrp
27-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )
