Madras High CourtCRL RC/1415/2025dismissed

N.Pavithra v. G.Narayanan

2025-08-13Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 13.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C No.1415 of 2025 N. Pavithra ... Petitioner Vs.

G. Narayanan ... Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS Act, 2023, to set aside the order dismissing the application in Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.1088 of 2021, dated 23.06.2025 by the XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.M. Madhan Kumar

O R D E R

This revision has been preferred as against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.1088 of 2021, dated 23.06.2025 by the XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, thereby dismissed the petition filed under Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the accused in the complaint lodged by the 1/4

respondent for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. While pending trial, the petitioner filed a process application to summon the respondent's Bank Manager to give evidence in respect of the cheque which was issued by the petitioner's brother for the loan borrowed by him in favour of the respondent and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally the petitioner's brother borrowed a loan from the respondent and issued a cheque. However, it got dishonoured and thereafter, issued another cheque as a security. Therefore, the petitioner wants to examine the Bank Manager of the respondent to prove that the petitioner's brother issued a cheque for the loan borrowed by him.

4. On perusal of the cross examination of PW1 revealed that he had categorically admitted that the petitioner's brother had borrowed a loan and issued a cheque and the same was also returned as dishonoured. Therefore, the admitted fact need not be proved by way of examining the Bank Manager of the respondent. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 2/4

5. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 13.08.2025 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No uma To The XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

3/4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J uma Crl.R.C No.1415 of 2025 13.08.2025 4/4