Madras High Court
Praveen Rayan vs State Through on 19 December, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 19/12/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.21595 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.16874 of 2023
Praveen Rayan : Petitioner/Respondent/
Sole Accused
Vs.
State through
The Inspector of Police,
Railway Police Force,
Madurai.
(In Crime No.149 of 2018) : Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER:-Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records to the impugned order, dated 27/10/2023
passed in Crl.M.P No.572 of 2023 in CC No.115 of 2018 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila)
Court, Madurai and set aside the same and pass such
further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Selvam
For Respondent : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to set aside impugned order, dated 27/10/2023 passed in Crl.M.P No.572 of 2023 in CC No.115 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila) Court, Madurai.
2.Heard both sides.
3.This petitioner is facing the charge under section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 @ section 354A r/w section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. After completion of the examination of the prosecution was over, the case was posted for further proceedings namely questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C. At that time, the prosecution taken out a petition under section 242(2) r/w 311 of Cr.P.C to examine one Pargunanathan, who was working as Travelling Ticket Examiner regarding the allotment of seat to this petitioner and relevant documents. That came to be allowed by the trial court stating that the examination of that person and production of the documents are required for just decision of the case. This is the sub and substance of the issue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/11 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that during the course of cross examination of the Investigating Officer namely PW8, a specific question was put to him regarding this point.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon this portion of the cross examination, which would run this.
“vjphp Kd;gjptpy;yhj of;bfl;il thq;fp gazk; bra;:Js;shh; vd;W vdJ Kjy; tprhuizapy; brhy;ypa[s;s epiyapy;> ehd; Kd;gjptpy;yhj of;bfl;il ifg;gw;wpnddh vd;why; ,y;iy. uapypy; gazk; bra;ak [ ;
gazpfspd; bgah; gl;oay; bfhz;l ml;ltizia ehd; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. m.rh.2 vGj;J K:ykhf bfhLj;j g[fhhpid kiwj;J m.rh.1 bfhLj;j bgha;ahd g[fhhpd; mog;gilapy; ,e;j tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd; vd;why; rhpay;y. ehd; ahiua[k; rhpahf tprhuiz bra;atpy;iy vd;whYk; ehd; brhd;dJnghy;
ve;j rk;gtKk; eilbgwtpy;iy vd;whYk;> ,e;j tHf;F rk;gtnk vdf;F bjhpahJ vd;whYk; rhpay;y. vdJ brhe;j Ch; fk;gk;. ehd; fpwpj;jt kj;jij rhh;e;jth;. m.rh.2> m.rh.7 fpwpj;jt kj;jij rhh;e;jth;fs; vd;gjhy; mth;fSf;F Mjuthf bgha;ahf ,e;j tHf;fpid jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd; vd;why; rhpay;y.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/11 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023
6.By relying upon this, he would submit that it is the categorical admission on the part of the Investigating Officer that he did not seize or record the Reservation Chart, Tickets, etc., facts. So according to him, to fill up a lacuna only, Travelling Ticket Examiner is going to be examined by the prosecution. If he is not examined, his defence will be seriously prejudiced.
7.Further, it is submitted that without taking up the further investigation, the documents sought to be produced cannot be permitted. He would rely upon the following judgment on that point.
(1)State represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, CB CID, Metro Wing, Chennai-2 Vs. Tmt.Indirakumari and others (2003(3)CTC 291);
(2)Martin Manrique Mansour Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police (2016 LW(Cri)637);
(3)Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others [(2017)4 SCC 177);
(4)Gayes Vs. State rep. by its,
Inspector of Police, Kulasekaranpattinam
Police Station, Thoothukudi District
[(2018-2-L.W.(Crl.) 721);
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/11 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023
5.An unreported order made in Crl.OP(MD)No.15182 of 2018, dated 29/08/2018 (State represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai Vs. K.P.Kumar @ K.P.Veera Kumar and 7 others);
6.Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2019)14 SCC
328); and
7.Unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varsha Garg Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Criminal Appeal No.1021 of 2022, dated 08/08/2022).
8.By relying upon the above judgments, he would contend that this position has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that unless there is further investigation on the side of the prosecution, further witnesses and documents cannot be permitted.
9.But perusal of the record of proceedings shows that on many of the hearings, this petitioner remained absent. On his behalf repeated petitions were filed under section 317 Cr.P.C. Crl.MP No.572 of 2023 was filed by the prosecution. That came to be allowed, on 27/10/2023 and posted for examination. Additional witness was present before the trial court and examined as PW9, 5 documents were marked and now posted for further https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/11 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023 proceedings. At that time, this petition came to be filed to set aside order passed by the trial court. First of all, since the examination of the witnesses already over, now the matter has become infructuous. He has to cross examine PW9 to bring home his defence. Now it too late for the petitioner to challenge the order. It ought to have been challenged immediately before examination of the additional witness.
10.As mentioned above, on the date of the cross examination of the additional witness, this petitioner remained absent. On his behalf, 317 Cr.P.C petition was filed and that was allowed. The effect of allowing 317 Cr.P.C application need not be elaborated. The petitioner deemed to have subjected to further proceedings, in his absence, represented by his advocate. So this is the point, which is available against the petitioner in this matter.
11.But however, for keeping the records right, we may also go into the question of power of the prosecution to lead additional evidence and produce the documents.
12.Section 311 Cr.P.C reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/11 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023 “311.Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or.
recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”
13.As mentioned in section 311 Cr.P.C, the purpose of every criminal trial is towards finding of truth, of course subject to the rules, regulations and procedures.
14.Here, even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no further investigation in this matter, reading of the petition filed by the prosecution shows that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the Travelling Ticket Examiner namely Pargunanathan. Records have also been seized. But at the time of filing the final report, there a mistake committed by the Investigating Officer by not mentioning the name of Pargunanathan and the relevant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/11 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023 document. So this is the contents of the petition filed by the prosecution.
15.For more clarify, Let me extract the relevant portion.
1(i) fle;j 23.08.2023-k; njjpad;W ,t;tHf;fpy; muRj;jug;g[ thjj;jpw;fhf tha;jh nghlg;gl;oUe;Js;sJ. md;iwa jpdk; ,Ug;g[g;ghij fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ,Ue;J ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F tUk; fhty; Fw;wtpay; ePjpj;Jiw eLth; vz;.6 ePjpkd;wj;jpy; cs;s ntW tHf;fpw;fhd brd;Wtpl;ljhy; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M $uhf ,aytpy;iy. mjdhy; ,t;tHf;fhdJ 29.08.2023-k; njjpad;W jPh;g;g[iuf;fhf xj;jp itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,t;tHf;F rk;ge;jkhd tHf;Ff; nfhg;g[fs; ePjpkd;w rhl;rpfspd; thf;FK:yq;fs;> muRj; jug;gpy; FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;s rhd;whtzq;fs; Mfpatw;iw muRj; jug;g[ thjj;jpw;fhd ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;Ls;s rhd;whtzq;fs; Mfpatw;iw muRj; jug;g[ thjj;jpw;fhf ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;l bghGJ g[yd; tprhuiz mYtyh; vjphp gazk; bra;j ,uapypy; ,Uf;if xJf;fpaJ rk;ge;jkhf 27.09.2018-k;; njjpad;W gzpapy; ,Ue;j gazr;rPl;L ghpnrhjfh; (TTE) jpU.gh;Fzehjd;> bjd;df ,uapy;nt> kJiu vd;gtiu tprhhpj;J Mtzq;fis ifg;gw;wpa tpguq;fs; tHf;Ff; nfhg;gpy; fhzg;gLfpwJ.
1(a)g[yd; tprhuiz mYtyh; tprhuiz bra;j gazr;rPl;L ghpnrhjfh; (TTE) jpU.gh;Fzehjd;> bjd;df ,uapy;nt> kJiu vd;gtiu rhl;rpg;gl;oaypy; nrh;f;fhkYk;> mthplk; bgw;w Mtzq;fis ePjpkdw;j;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s ,Wjpawpf;ifa[ld; nrh;j;J jhf;fy; bra;ahkYk; tpLg;gl;Ls;sJ. vjphpf;F 26.06.2018-k; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/11 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023 njjpad;W ehfh;nfhtpy;-kJiu bjhlh;tz;oapy; bghJg; gazr;rPl;oy; Kd;gjpt[ bgl;oapy; gazk; bra;tjw;F ,Uf;if xJf;fpa gazr;rPl;L ghpnrhjfh; jpU.gh;Fzehjd; vd;gtiu muRj; jug;gpy; TLjy; rhl;rpahf tprhhpj;J gazr;rPl;L ghpnrhjfh; jpU.gh;Fzehjd; vd;gth; K:yk; ,uapy;nt ,Uf;if xJf;fPL ml;ltiz (Railway Chart) Mtzj;ij muRj; jug;g[j; jug;g[ Mtzkhf FwpaPL bra;a ntz;oa[s;sJ.”
16.So the contention on the part of the petitioner that there was no investigation by the Investigating Officer with regard to this point is not correct on record. He was already examined by the Investigating Officer and document was also seized. But by mistake, it is omitted to be mentioned in the final report.
17.It is also further seen that without properly perusing the records, PW8 gave evidence that he has not seized the documents, etc. So this mistake should not prejudice to the prosecution case. So the contention on the part of the petitioner that there was no investigation on this line, is absolutely, not corrected on record. So none of the points raised by the petitioner are acceptable and the order passed by the trial court is perfectly valid and legal also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/11 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023
18.I find no reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19/12/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate, (Additional Mahila) Court, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Railway Police Force, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/11 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21595 of 2023 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.21595 of 2023 19/12/2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/11