G.Kiruthika, Aged 26 Years v. T.Karthik, Aged 33 Years

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.10.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.22242 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.10335 of 2016 G.Kiruthika ... Petitioner vs.

T.Karthik ... Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 24.08.2016 made in CRP No.30 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode conforming the order dated 10.05.2016 made in CMP No.3019 of 2015 in STC No.189 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track No.1, Erode.

For petitioner Mr.M.Guruprasad

ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 24.08.2016 made in CRP No.30 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode conforming the order dated 10.05.2016 made in CMP No.3019 of 2015 in STC No.189 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track No.1, Erode.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent are referred to as accused and complainant respectively.

4. The complainant has launched prosecution in STC No.189 of 2015 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrumens Act. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C and the matter was posted for arguments. At that juncture, the accused filed CMP No.3019 of 2016 u/s 311 Cr.P.C. to once again recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross examination, which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode on 10.05.2016, challenging which the accused filed

Crl.R.P.No.30/2016 before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed on 24.08.2016. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below, the accused is before this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., when once a person approaches the Sessions Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction, he is precluded from filing a second revision before the High Court. However, in certain circumstances, where it is shown that the orders passed by the Courts below have resulted in abuse of process of law and consequent grave injustice to the parties, a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. In this case, the accused had cross examined P.W.1 in detail and he was also questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. When the matter was posted for arguments, he filed a petition u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.1 on the ground that her husband has filed insolvency proceedings in which he has shown the complainant as a creditor, which she wants to confront with P.W.1.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, these facts are to the exclusive knowledge of the accused and her husband and it is not a proceeding that was initiated by the complainant either against the accused or her husband. Therefore, the Courts below had rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this is not a fit case warranting interference u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

In the result, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track No.1, Erode.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1c c to M/S.M.Guruprasad, Advocate SR.57327 Crl.O.P. No.22242 of 2016 nr[co] srg 08/11/2016