IN THE HON’BLE COUR? oF FAST TRACK NOI CrM.P.No, 2022 IN STC No. 496/2019 ei ... Petitioner/ Accused -Vs- Sudhakar _.. Respondent/ Complainant Petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C 1. It is submitted that the respondent /complainant preferred this Instant frivolous complaint as if the petitioner issued a cheque to the respondent with all sort of falschood, 2. It is submitted that since the impugned cheque and its transaction itself is denied, there is no consideration passed upon the said cheque and it was alleged by the respondent as if the petitioner had borrowed a poke ae loan to the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), from this respondent for her husband Ashokkumar’s business and their daughter’s treatment. Since the petitioner is a Housewife and she had no kmowledge about her husband business transactions and the respondent herein is a stranger to this petitioner. 3. It is submitted that while the facts of are being so, wherein the case was posted for PW1 cross on 22.02.2022 but the petitioner was held in Coimbatore for her treatment. So she was not available for giving instruction to her counsel and hence the PW1 cross ¥ e need for a proper adjudication and for elucidating innocence and further the petitioner is having a fair « and further due to the ill health of He petitioner, the g be able to prefer this petition. sincé rove her case and it is vital for r°43. . It is submitted that sine? the case is posted for defense side evidence and the accused prefer this petition to recall petition to recall the PW1 for cross examination “4. tis submitted that the MBM to rebut the case of the prosecution and adduce evidence and procuring the contra evidence is the right of the accused which could not be defeated and the respondent would have no Valid objection in allowing this Pplication. 5. It is submitted that it is the fundamental right of the accused to rebut the case of the complainant and though the respondent / complainant had not discharged the initial burden of proof. 6. It is submitted that if it is not ordered so, it would greatly prejudice the rights of the accused and the right of the fair trial would be denied to * her and further there is no loan transaction between the parties and hence it would be exigent and inevitable re-open the evidence of the complainant and further without completing the cross examination, leading of the defense evidence would prejudice her defense and further after the change of counsel for effective defense this application is made ‘without any delay and there would be no prejudice to the complainant, if the application is allowed g It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to recall the PW! for cross examination in STC No, interesta of justice, equity and good conscience and " , Pa Dated at Madurai-on this 29% day of 44