M/s.Deepavali Fund Vs The state rep.by,

M/s.Deepavali Fund vs The state rep.by,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 30, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1428367

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1428367
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar
Decided On: Mar 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/5375/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/s.Deepavali Fund

Respondent

The state rep.by,

Excerpt

.....lw33, lw35 and lw59 before the learned special judge, special court under tnpid act, chennai. the trial court, by order dated 02.02.2026, dismissed the petition, against which the present petition.2. the contention of the petitioner is that the defacto complainant is thebrother of a4. there was a family dispute and taking advantage of the indigenous chit conducted by the petitioners, a false case has been projected. in fact, pw4, pw5, and pw6 are part of chit transactions, who had collected money from others, and now projected that they deposited the amount in the chit transaction with the petitioners. due to the act of pw4 and pw5, the chit cycle got struck. pw6 had given a stamp receipt. pw14 and pw15 are investigating officers. pw14 had not been completely cross examined. hence,page2 of 6great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. due to the change in counsel, the new counsel on record before the trial court filed a petition under section 311 of cr.p.c. to recall the aforementioned witnesses and lw11, lw33, lw35 and lw59. the learned trial judge, after considering the submissions made, dismissed the petition observing that the application is nothing but to abuse the process of law and had been filed only to protract the proceedings endlessly.3. the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the averments madein the petition. he submitted that the previous counsel on record before the trial court was all along busy with in other cases he had appeared and he could not concentrate on the present case and he could not properly cross examined the prosecution witnesses.4. the learned additional public prosecutor submitted that the case wasregistered in the year 2015 and on receipt of final report i.e., on 27.02.2018, the offences were taken cognizance in c.c.no.1 of 2018. thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were commenced and closed on 20.03.2023 and 25.11.2025 respectively. subsequently, the petitioners filed the petition under.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. M/s.Deepavali Fund

2. M/s.Provision Material Fund,

3. M/s.Silver Fund Financial Establishments / Accused (A1 to A3 Running at Address) A1 to A3 Financial Establishments/Represented by A4

4. Banumathi

5. R.Yuvaraj

6. R.Sheela

7. R.Suganya .. Petitioner Vs The State Rep.by, Inspector of Police, Economic Offence wing-II, Chennai-600 032. ..Respondent Page1 of 6 To set aside the order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.49 of 2026 in CC.No.01 of 2018 by the Special Court under TNPID Act chennai. For Petitioners : M/s.A.Balasingh Ramanujam For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioners/accused, facing trial in C.C.No.1 of 2018, had filed a petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2026 to re-call PW4, PW5, PW6, PW13, PW14 and other witnesses namely, LW11, LW33, LW35 and LW59 before the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai. The trial court, by order dated 02.02.2026, dismissed the petition, against which the present petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the defacto complainant is the

brother of A4. There was a family dispute and taking advantage of the indigenous chit conducted by the petitioners, a false case has been projected. In fact, PW4, PW5, and PW6 are part of chit transactions, who had collected money from others, and now projected that they deposited the amount in the chit transaction with the petitioners. Due to the act of PW4 and PW5, the chit cycle got struck. PW6 had given a stamp receipt. PW14 and PW15 are Investigating Officers. PW14 had not been completely cross examined. Hence,

Page2 of 6

great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. Due to the change in counsel, the new counsel on record before the trial court filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the aforementioned witnesses and LW11, LW33, LW35 and LW59. The learned Trial Judge, after considering the submissions made, dismissed the petition observing that the application is nothing but to abuse the process of law and had been filed only to protract the proceedings endlessly.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the averments made

in the petition. He submitted that the previous counsel on record before the trial court was all along busy with in other cases he had appeared and he could not concentrate on the present case and he could not properly cross examined the prosecution witnesses.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the case was

registered in the year 2015 and on receipt of final report i.e., on 27.02.2018, the offences were taken cognizance in C.C.No.1 of 2018. Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were commenced and closed on 20.03.2023 and 25.11.2025 respectively. Subsequently, the petitioners filed the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the witnesses. The learned Trial Judge after the considering the fact that the petitioners/accused were given fullest opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses and the petitioners/accused have substantially cross examined the witnesses PW1 to PW14 and in such circumstances, the Page3 of 6

petition to recall the prosecution witnesses for further cross examination cannot be allowed in view of the fact that the power conferred under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice.

5. Considering the submissions made by the counsel on either side, it is

seen that the petitioners are functioning an indigenous chit in the name of Deepavali Fund, Provision Material Fund, and Silver Fund. The trial court, by a very reasoned order, dismissed the petition finding that the petitioners have been given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witnesses in detail. Though the petitioner contends that they are liable to pay certain dues, they have not come forward to deposit any amount in admission of such liability. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court.

6. However, at the request of the petitioners’ counsel, PW14 alone may be permitted to be recalled and cross examined since further cross-examination of the Investigating Officer with regard to the transaction is required.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that PW14 is available in service. Page4 of 6

8. In view of the same, the above petition is dismissed. But permitted the petitioners to recall and cross examine PW14. However, it is made clear that only one opportunity will be granted to the petitioners. 30-03-2026 nl Note: Issue order copy on 02.04.2026 Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No To 1.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence wing-II, Chennai-600 032. 2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. Page5 of 6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

nl 30-03-2026 Page6 of 6

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties M/s.Deepavali Fund vs The state rep.by, Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar