K.Devi v. G.Parthiban

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR K.Devi ..Petitioner(s) Vs G.Parthiban ..Respondent(s) To set aside the order passed by the learned XXXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC I, Egmore, at allikulam, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.16972 of 2025 in STC.No.9420 of 2025 dated 24-03-2026 and pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Anusuya

ORDER

The petitioner/accused, who is facing trial in STC.No.9420 of 2025, challenges the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the Trial Court in Crl.MP.No.16972 of 2025, whereby the respondent/complainant was permitted to recall and further examine himself and mark additional documents, namely, loan agreement, pawn receipts, settlement deed dated 09.05.2013 and G-Pay screenshots.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent/complainant had examined himself as PW1 and was cross examined in detail. When a specific question was put to him regarding the possession of any loan agreement, he stated that he had no such document. However, as an afterthought, the present petition has been filed seeking permission to produce the said documents. The petitioner seriously disputes the veracity of the documents. According to the petitioner, the Trial Court erred in permitting the respondent to mark the additional documents as the same is only an attempt to fill up the lacuna, which is impermissible in law.

3. Considering the above submissions and perusal of materials, it is seen that the petitioner, being the accused, had already cross-examined the respondent in detail. Though the respondent initially stated that he was not in possession of the loan agreement, he now claims to be in possession of the loan agreement, pawn receipts, settlement deed dated 09.05.2013 and G-Pay screenshots, which he proposes to mark as additional documents. The petitioner opposes the same on the ground that the attempt is only to fill up the lacuna in the complainant's case.

4. It is pertinent to note that the case is presently posted for continuation of the cross-examination of PW1. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for permitting the respondent to further

examine himself and produce the additional documents are proper and justified. Mere permission to produce documents does not automatically result in their being marked as exhibits. Copies of the documents shall be furnished to the petitioner, and the documents may be marked only subject to proof and admissibility in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS To The XXXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC I, Egmore, at Allikulam, Chennai

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

PVS 10-06-2026