Madras High Court
R.Prakash vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 August, 2015
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 11.08.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.OP No.20059 & 20060 of 2015 and M.P. No.1 & 1 of 2015 R.Prakash .. Petitioner in both Crl.OPs. Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Rasipuram, Namakkal. ..Respondent in both Crl.OPs. Common Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 30.06.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.2272 of 2015 and Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2015 respectively in C.C.No.33 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Sithirai Anandam [in both Crl.OPs] For Respondent :Mr.C.Emalias [in both Crl.OPs] Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed praying to set aside the order dated 30.06.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.2272 of 2015 and Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2015 respectively in C.C.No.33 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
3. It is seen that the final report in these cases were filed in the year 2008 and after examination of prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Thereafter, the petitioner was given enough time for defence evidence. At that juncture, the petitioner filed petitions under the Sections 91 Cr.P.C., and 311 Cr.P.C., to examine the Inspector of Police as defence witness, for the purpose of marking a complaint that is alleged to have been given by this petitioner against the defacto-complainant in the year 2008. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, has dismissed Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2015 by a well considered order dated 30.06.2015.
4. Mr.S.Sithirai Anandam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should be given a fair opportunity, for disproving the prosecution case. This Court has no quarell with his submissions.
5. However, on a reading of the petition filed by the petitioner in C.M.P. No.2272 of 2015, it is seen that the petitioner has not even given any details about the documents which he wants to summon and he has also not stated as to how they are relevant for the just decision of the case. In State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padi [2004 AIR SCW 6183], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C., cannot be filed for making a roving enquiry.
6. In this case, the learned Trial Judge has passed a detailed order, wherein he has noticed that the petitioner has been prolonging the case by not cross-examining the prosecution witnesses.
7. In the result, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Trial Court and these petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
11.08.2015 ds To
1.The Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Rasipuram, Namakkal.
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH,J.
ds Crl.OP No.20059 & 20060 of 2015 11.08.2015