Shanmuga Sakthi v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 20.10.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN 1.Shanmuga Sakthi 2.Subramani 3.Sadaiyappan 4.Palaniammal ... Petitioners -vsState Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sirumugai Police Station, Coimbatore District.

Crime No.205 of 2012

...Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order made in C.M.P. No.1847 of 2023 dated 10.08.2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ramkumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page No.1/4

ORDER

The petition filed to recall P.W.1 and P.W.2 after completing the trial has been rejected by the trial Court rightly stating that the reason for recalling the witnesses to turn them hostile and report settlement between the parties is contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code. In this regard, the trial Court also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M.Vellaisamy Vs. The Inspector of Police in Crl.O.P. No.14671 of 2019, wherein, casual manner of summoning to recall the witnesses cannot under the garb of cross examination and treating them as hostile.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused stated that since the parties have entered into compromise, the same has been settled, for which recalling them is necessary.

3. Section 311 of Cr.P.C reads as below:

'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 its 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 Page No.2/4

evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.'

4. The reason stated in the petition to recall does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is upheld. If the parties want to settle the matter and if the offences fall within the category of compoundable offence, it is open for them to compound the offence before the trial Court or if the offences fall within the scope of plea bargaining, they can explore the possibility.

5. Recalling witness and forcing them to say something contrary before the Court for the sake of acquittal will tantamount to undermine the credibility of the judicial system. Hence, this petition is dismissed with the above observation.

20.10.2023 Index : Yes/No rkp To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sirumugai Police Station, Coimbatore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Page No.3/4

Madras High Court, Madras.

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

rkp 20.10.2023 Page No.4/4