Madras High Court
CRL RC/2178/2025 of S.JOSUVA Vs SUNIL BHAJANLAL GABA on 1 October 2026
Crl.R.C.No.2178 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.2178 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA012569942025}
S.Josuva
..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Sunil Bhajanlal Gaba
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, seeking to call for the records of Crl.M.P.No.5091 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.645 of 2022 dated 12.08.2025 on the file of XV Small Causes Court at Chennai and set aside the same.
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr.S.Karthikeyan,
for Mr.V.Karnan
For Respondent(s)
: Mr.S.Saravanakumar
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This revision challenges the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned XV Judge, XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.5091 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.645 of 2022, dismissing the petitioner’s application filed under Section 266(2) of BNSS, to summon two witnesses to prove his defence, on the ground that the petition is vague and was filed only to delay the proceedings.
Crl.R.C.No.2178 of 2025
2. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bank Manager is required to establish that the petitioner paid the money due to the respondent/complainant, and that, the Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam, who is the second witness sought to be summoned, is required to prove that a complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the respondent had not filed any complaint before the Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam; that, in any case, the alleged complaint is of no relevance to establish the petitioner’s defence in this case, and that, the Bank Manager is not required to prove the bank statements, which could even be marked through the petitioner himself.
5. Since it is the specific case of the respondent that no complaint was filed by him before the Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to summon the Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned dismissal order.
Crl.R.C.No.2178 of 2025
6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to produce the bank statements to establish that he paid the money to the respondent. The petitioner, can either examine himself to prove the bank statement, or, if the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the said statements, the statements can be read in evidence in terms of Section 330 of BNSS.
7. With the above directions and observation, this Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of. 01.10.2026 skt Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To: The XV Judge, XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
Crl.R.C.No.2178 of 2025
SUNDER MOHAN, J. skt Crl.R.C.No.2178 of 2025 01.10.2026