Mani @ Manikandan, M/A 22 Yrs, v. The State Rep By Its,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.8661 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.4482 of 2018 Mani @Manikandan ..Petitioner/Accused vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police (L & O) E-3, Thynampet Police Station Cuddalore District.
Cr.No.547/2012 ..
Respondent/Complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 16.03.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.4770 of 2018 in S.C.No.254 of 2012, on the file of learned Mahila Judge, Chennai and allow the petitioner to recall the witness P.W.17 for further cross-examination.
For petitioner M/s.Sheikh Mehrunnisa for Dr.G.Krishnamurthy For Respondent Mrs.Kritika Kamal, P.
Government Advocate [Crl.Side]
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 16.03.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4770 of 2018 in S.C.No.254 of 2012, on the file of the Mahila Court, Chennai and allow the petitioner to recall P.W.17 for further crossexamination.
2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in S.C.No.254 of 2012 for an offence under Section 302 IPC before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. The prosecution have completed their evidence and the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. While the matter was posted for arguments, the accused filed Crl.M.P.No.4770 of 2018 in S.C.No.254 of 2012 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the Investigating Officer [P.W.17] and it has been dismissed by the trial Court on 16.03.2018, challenging which, this petition has been filed on the ground that P.W.17 has to be cross-examined.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that P.W.17, the Investigating Officer has to be cross-examined, since one counsel was representing the accused earlier and he has given change of Vakalat and therefore, it is imperative to cross-examine P.W.17.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against the accused was pending from 15.07.2013 to 30.04.2015 and the accused was arrested only thereafter. She further submitted that when the matter is ripe for arguments, the present petition has been filed to recall P.W.17.
5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
6. It is seen that an opportunity was given to the accused to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 and they have been cross-examined. As far as the Investigating Officer [P.W.17] is concerned, he was also cross-examined earlier, but, again, the present petition has been filed. In A.G. Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another [(2015) 9 Scale 649], the Supreme Court has very clearly stated the parameters for recalling the witnesses. In this case, just because the counsel has been changed, that cannot be a reason to recall the Investigating Officer, who is not an eye witness to this case. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gms To 1.The Inspector of Police (L & O) E-3, Thynampet Police Station Cuddalore District.
2.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.J.B.Soloman Peter Kamal Doss, Advocate SR.No.41697 SR(CO) sm:12.7.2018 Crl.O.P. No.8661 of 2018