R. MANISH HATHIRAMANI Vs. G.D. RANKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dtd. 30/9/2020 passed in CMP No.752 of 2019 in CC No.1543 of 2013 on the file of the Fast Track Court III, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, the present Criminal Original Petition has been preferred by the petitioner/accused.

(2.) The petitioner/accused is facing criminal prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent is the complainant. From the materials place on record, it is found that the complainant/P.W.1 had been examined in chief on 5/7/2017 and thereafter, extensively cross examined on 30/8/2017, 23/10/2017, 23/11/2017 and 11/1/2018 and after the closure of the complainant's case, the defence evidence of the petitioner/accused was commenced and the petitioner/accused has examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.D1 to D7 had been marked and further examined D.W.2 and thereafter the defence evidence was closed on 7/9/2019 and the matter then stood adjourned for arguments on 30/9/2019. On that date, the petitioner/accused preferred a petition to compare the signature found in the cheque by an expert and the same was rejected by the Court inasmuch as similar application for the same relief had already been dismissed and the abovesaid order had also been confirmed by the High Court. Thereafter, the matter stood adjourned for arguments on 4/11/2019. On that date, the petition has been preferred by the petitioner in CMP No.752/2019 for recalling P.W.1 for further cross examination.

(3.) On three main grounds, the petition has been preferred by the petitioner to recall P.W.1, namely, with reference to the averments put forth in the Proof Affidavit as regards the lodging of the false complaint by the accused on the ground that the complainant had stolen the cheque, the solvency of the complainant in lending a sum of Rs.4,02,93,000.00 and with reference to the contradictions deposed in the Proof Affidavit regarding the manner in which the loan amount had been furnished to the accused. The abovesaid petition has been resisted by the complainant contending that, only with a sole aim of procrastinating the proceedings endlessly, the petition has been preferred by the petitioner without any basis and particularly, when the complainant/P.W.1 had already been extensively cross examined, the present petition has been preferred only to cause immense loss and hardship to the complainant, who is 70 years old and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.