Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

N. Anand Venkatesh vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 22 December, 2020

Author: N.Anand Venkatesh

Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh

                                                                             Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021


                                               Crl.O.P.No.2593 of 2021
                                                        and
                                               Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2021

                     N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.,
                            The matter was posted under the caption 'For Being Mentioned'

                     on the ground that the petitioner has obtained an order in this petition by

                     concealing the earlier order passed in Crl.O.P.No.20574 of 2020, dated

                     22.12.2020, dismissing the petition, wherein the very same order passed

                     by the Court below in C.M.P.No.442 of 2019 in S.C.No.351 of 2017, was

                     challenged.



                                   2.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, there was

                     no representation on the side of the petitioner. Since the order has been

                     obtained by the petitioner by concealing the earlier order passed by this

                     Court, the order passed in this petition on 23.02.2021 is hereby

                     withdrawn and the Court below is directed to complete the proceedings

                     in S.C.No.351 of 2017, within a period of two months from the date of

                     receipt of a copy of this order.




                     Page No.1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021


                                   3.This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.



                                                                                        22.04.2021
                     Index    : Yes/No
                     Internet : Yes/No
                     TM/kp




                     Page No.2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                              Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021


                                    N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.,

                                                           TM/kp




                                       Crl.O.P.No.2593 of 2021




                                                      22.04.2021



                     Page No.3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                           Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 23.02.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                               Crl.O.P.No.2593 of 2021
                                             and Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2021

                        Ravi                                                    .. Petitioner
                                                         Vs.

                     1.State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
                       Tindivanam, Tindivanam Police,
                       Villupuram District.

                     2.Elumalai,
                       S/o.Subbarayan.

                     3.Jagadeesh,

                     4.Jayaprakash                                         .. Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
                     Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the impugned order in
                     CMP.No.442 of 2019 in S.C.No.351 of 2017 on the file of Additional


                     Page No.4/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                   Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021


                     Subordinate Judge at Tindivanam.
                                      For Petitioner      : Mr.N.S.Nagappan
                                      For Respondents     : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
                                                           Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

                                                          ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution to examine the Doctor and the photographer as prosecution witnesses.

2.The defacto complainant has filed the present petition since the prosecution did not challenge the order passed by the Court below. The grievance of the defacto complainant is that the prosecution had merely examined the Doctor from Tindivanam General Hospital, who had referred the defacto complainant for treatment to JIPMER Hospital. According to the defacto complainant, he sustained serious injuries and the same can be explained only by the Doctor, who examined the defacto complainant at the JIPMER Hospital and the relevant documents from JIPMER Hospital must also be marked in order to prove the nature of Page No.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021 injuries sustained by the defacto complainant.

3.The defacto complainant also wants the photographer to be examined as a witness in order to mark the photographs that were taken and which will clearly show the nature of injuries sustained by the defacto complainant.

4.The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the Doctor from the Tindivanam Government Hospital has been examined as P.W.8 and he has spoken about the treatment given to the defacto complainant and the reports received from the JIPMER Hospital. Therefore, the Court below found that there was no requirement to examine the Doctor from JIPMER Hospital since his opinion is already available. The Court below also found that existence of the photographs was never explained or produced at any stage of the case and it will be a futile exercise to insist photographs at a later stage in the proceedings.

Page No.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021

5.Heard Mr.N.S.Nagappan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the first respondent.

6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to ensure that the injuries are properly explained by the Doctor, who gave treatment to the defacto complainant at the JIPMER Hospital, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below insofar as dismissing the application for the examination of the Doctor from JIPMER Hospital as a prosecution witness. Insofar as the photographs are concerned, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Court below. It is due to the fact that the injuries are now going to be explained by a Doctor and that will have more relevance than producing the photographs of the injuries.

7.In view of the above discussion, the orders passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in CMP.No.442 of 2019 in S.C.No.351 of 2017, dated 12.02.2020 is partly set aside and the Court Page No.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021 below is directed to re-open the evidence and issue summons to the concerned Doctor, who treated the petitioner at JIPMER Hospital. This Doctor shall be permitted to be examined as a prosecution witness and he shall also be cross examined on the side of the accused.

8.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed and the Court below is directed to complete the proceedings in S.C.No.351 of 2017, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23.02.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rm To

1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Page No.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021 Tindivanam.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J., rm Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021 Page No.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.OP.No.2593 of 2021 23.02.2021 Page No.10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/