Madras High Court
R.Senthil Murugan vs The State Rep. By on 14 February, 2024
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23397 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.02.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRL.O.P (MD) No.23397 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1285 of 2024
R.Senthil Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police
Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station,
Madurai District.
(In Crime No.97/2020). ... Respondent / Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying, to set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate – Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.7911
of 2023 in C.C.No.674 of 2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Murugan
(Party-in-person)
For Respondent : Mr.Thangaaravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23397 of 2023
ORDER
The Party-in-person had filed this Criminal Original Petition seeking to set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.7911 of 2023 in C.C.No.674 of 2023.
2. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he is the first accused in this case. The husband of the defacto complainant is serving at Kodimangalam Panchayat as OHT Operator and the Defacto complainant is also working as temporary staff of Kodimangalam Panchayat. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, viz., Prema, F.I.R in Crime No. 97 of 2020 was registered, and after investigation, final report was filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.674 of 2023. As per the complaint, the accused are alleged to have threatened the defacto complainant that she would not attend her job in the Panchayat of Kodimangalam, failing which, she will be killed. Therefore, based on such complaint, a case was registered against the the Petitioner and others, who are also employed in the same Kodimangalam Panchayat. When the case came up for trial, the witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and the Petitioner as party-in- 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23397 of 2023 person cross-examined the witnesses. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C, to recall of P.W.1 to P.W.5 for further cross examination, which was rejected by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, the Petitioner had filed this Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.7911 of 2023 in C.C.No.674 of 2023, dated 06.12.2023.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions of the Respondent, submits that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, Cr.M.P.No.7911 of 2023, is a well reasoned order. Sufficient opportunities were given to the Petitioner to cross-examine and they had exercised their right to cross-examine the witnesses. Subsequently, the Petitioner had filed a Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the reasons given by the learned Judicial Magistrate – Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, are well reasoned and do not warrant any interference of this Court in exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23397 of 2023
5. The point for consideration:
Whether the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, is to be set aside ?
6. The Petitioner herein is arrayed as First Accused. He is conducting the case before the trial Court by himself, without engaging a Counsel. Not only the Petitioner, but also the other co-accused are also conducting the case by themselves. While so, they were aware of the case that they had cross-examined the witnesses, when the witnesses were in attendance before the trial Court, and deposed evidence as prosecution witnesses. After examination of P.W.1 to P.W.5, the Petitioner filed a Petition in Cr.M.P.No.7911 of 2023 under Section 311 Cr.P.C, seeking to recall P.W.1 to P.W.5 .
7. In the light of the reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs State of Punjab reported in 2015(1) MLJ (crl) 288 (SC), which was circulated throughout the Country for the trial Judges, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23397 of 2023 leniently by the trial Judge. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Judge, in Cr.M.P.No.7911 of 2023, rejecting the contention of the Petitioner seeking to recall for further cross examination is found justified.
8. In the light of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Internet:Yes./No 14.02.2024
Index:Yes/No
LS
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate
- Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police
Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station,
Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23397 of 2023
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
LS
CRL.O.P (MD) No.23397 of 2023
14.02.2024
6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis