SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karthikeyan vs State By The Inspector Of Police on 8 January, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.01.2019

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.OP No.400 of 2019 and Crl.MP No.243 of 2019

1. Karthikeyan
2. Thangamani
3. Sumathi … Petitioners

Vs.

State by the Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tiruppur North …Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. PC to set
aside the order dated 14.12.2018 made in Crl.MP.No.11060 of 2018 in CC
No.659 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur and
allow this Criminal Original Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Franklin

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed challenging the

order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition filed under Section

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

311 of Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner for recall and cross examination of

PW1, PW7 and PW8.

2. The petitioners are facing a trial before the Court below for an

offence under Section 498A, 506 (ii) IPC. The prosecution had examined 8

witnesses and the petitioner did not cross-examine PW7 PW8. Thereafter,

the petitioners were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC and the case

was posted for defence evidence and since no witnesses were produced, the

defence evidence was closed and the case was at the stage of arguments. At

this stage, the present petition came to be filed before the Court below to

recall and cross-examine PW1, PW7 and PW8.

3.The Court below had dismissed the petition on the ground that PW1

was already cross-examined by the petitioners and there is no reason for

again recalling PW1 for further cross-examination. The Court below also

found that the petitioners ought to have cross-examined PW7 and PW8 on

the same date, they were examined in chief. But this was not done by the

petitioners and therefore, the Court below relying upon the judgement of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab proceeded

to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioners.

http://www.judis.nic.in
3

4. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order

passed by the Court below. However, it is seen from the records that the

petitioners have participated in the proceedings which commenced in the

year 2017 and have cross examined most of the witnesses. The petitioners

want to further cross-examine PW1 on the ground that certain important

documents needs to be marked through PW1 and PW1 has to be questioned

on those documents. PW7 is the police officer who registered the FIR and

PW8 is the Investigating Officer.

5. This Court is of the considered view that one last opportunity

can be given to the petitioners to cross-examine PW1, PW7 and PW8 by

imposing certain conditions.

6. The order passed by the Court below in C.M.P.No.11060 of 2018

dated 14.12.2018 is hereby set aside. The Court below shall fix a date for

cross-examination of PW1, PW7 and PW8. On the day, when these witnesses

appear, they shall be cross-examine by the petitioners on the very same

date. If for any reason, the petitioners fails to cross-examine them, the

petitioners shall forfeit their right to recall these witnesses for cross-

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

examination in future. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to PW1,

Rs.1,000/- each to PW7 and PW8, when these witnesses appear before the

Court for cross-examination. The Criminal Original Petition is accordingly

allowed and the Court below is directed to complete the proceedings in CC

No.659 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur,

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this

order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

08.01.2019

rka/rri

Internet : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Speaking / Non Speaking Order

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Tiruppur.

2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

N. ANAND VENKATESH , J.

rka

Crl.OP No.400 of 2019

08.01.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2019 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh