A.Rajaraman, v. Anbu Malair

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CRL MP NO. 16023 OF 2025 A.Rajaraman, S/o. Annadurai, 156 Nehru Street, (Upstairs Rasi Eversilvar Store), Tindivanam.

Petitioner(s) Vs Anbu Malair S/o. Elangovan, 72, New No.10/52, Rajaji Street, Tindivanam.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.554/2025 in CC.No.71/2016 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate -I, Tindivanam, set aside the same and consequently allow Crl.MP.No.554/2025 in CC.NO.71/2016.

1/4

CRL MP No. 16023 of 2025 PRAYER To Stay all further proceedings in CC.No.71/2016 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tindivanam Pending disposal of the above Revision. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. P.L.Narayanan, Senior Advocate for Mr. E.Hariharan For Respondent(s):

Mr. K.Balaji

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the trial court with regard to dismissal of Crl.M.P.No. 554 of 2025 in C.C.No.71 of 2016, which was filed seeking to call for the documents DVD and pen drive, which has been filed in the case C.C.No.85 of 2017 including the conversation, which is necessary to prove his defence in C.C.No. 71 of 2016. To that effect, the petitioner had also filed a petition to recall and reopen petition along with another petition for joint trial. With regard to joint trial, the petition was dismissed. With regard to recall and reopen petition, it was allowed. The trial judge had dismissed the application to call for records in C.C.No.85 of 2017 without assigning any specific reason. Challenging the said findings, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

2. The learned counsel for petitioner appeared through Video conference and submitted that the very purpose of recalling and reopening petition is to mark the documents. However, those two petitions were allowed, but calling 2/4

upon of those documents was not granted. Therefore, the very object of filing the petitions was not reached. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings with the regard to the petition in C.rl.M.P. No.554 of 2025. The learned counsel for respondent raised objections stating that the petitioner can very well get the certified copy of those documents and can mark the same subject to objections before the trial court. For, which, learned counsel for petitioner replied that as on date, there is no specific direction available to get certified copies to that effect. Hence, he needs some direction.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering both side submissions, this petition is allowed with a direction directing the petitioner to get the certified copies in the form of pen drive and DVD filed in C.C.No.85 of 2017 and thereafter, he can produce and mark those documents along with genuineness certificate which was obtained already as per manner known to law. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 19-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rpp To Judicial Magistrate-I, Tindivanam.

3/4

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rpp CRL RC No. 1532 of AND CRL MP NO.

16023 OF 2025 19-09-2025 4/4