IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 11.01.2008 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P. No.5136 of 2006 and Crl.M.P. No.1309 of 2006 M/s.S.S.Sree Amman Investments Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder N.V.Selvaraj, D. No.377, II Floor, 7th Street, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-641 021. ... Petitioner vs. S.M.Subbiah ... Respondent Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to C.C. No.886 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Coimbatore, and set aside the order dated 20.10.2005 passed in Crl.R.C. No.98 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the order passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P. No.5043 of 2005 in C.C. No.886 of 2000. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Goviganesan For Respondents: Mr.J.Pothiraj O R D E R The petitioner/complainant initially filed a complaint as against the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and subsequently, the charges were altered to Sections 465, 471 and 420 IPC. 2. After completion of examination of the witnesses and the arguments of the counsel appearing on either side having been heard in full, an Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. came to be filed by the complainant to recall PW-1 so as to substantiate that his first wife is also one of the partners in the complainant's firm. The trial court rejected the Application filed by the complainant/petitioner, whereupon, a Revision was filed before the District Court and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Coimbatore, dismissed the Revision, confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which ultimately resulted in filing of the present Criminal Original Petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by pointing out that some material aspects have been omitted to be elicited from the witness/PW-1 during earlier course of examination, which necessitated filing of the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and by stating that such Application could be filed at any stage of the trial proceedings before delivery of the judgment; would submit that both the courts below have erroneously dismissed the application without properly appreciating the claim of the petitioner; hence, the concurrent orders of the courts below call for interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the case itself was initiated in the year 2000; that, on five occasions, at the behest of the complainant, PW-1 was recalled; that after argument of both sides was over, the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed only as an attempt to fill up some lacunae and that, such practice by the complainant should not be allowed; and seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have perused the materials available on record and carefully considered the rival contentions put forth on either side. 6. Admittedly, the case/C.C. has been pending before the learned Magistrate from 2000 onwards. The complainant frequently recalled PW-1, that is, on five occasions, and after such exercise, at the stage when arguments were completed by both sides, by way of Crl.M.P. No.5043 of 2005, prayer was made to recall the witness. Thus, prima facie, it appears that such application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed only to protract the proceedings and to fill up some lacunae at the advanced stage of the trial. Further, the order passed by the learned Magistrate having been confirmed in the Revision preferred by the petitioner before the lower appellate court, the present Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will amount to a second revision before the High court, which is not permissible under law. Even on the merits of the case, the learned Magistrate had given sufficient reasons to reject the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for interfering with the orders passed by the courts below on well-founded reasons. Consequently, the Criminal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Original Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. JI. To 1. Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. 2. The Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. + 1 CC To Mr. K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate SR NO.1706 Crl.O.P. No.5136/2006. akr[co] gp/5.2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/