Prakash Reddy v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and CRL.MP.No.18642 of 2025 Prakash Reddy Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by Inspector of Police, Thali Police Station, Thali, Krishnangiri District.
Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.Sr.No.177 of 2025 dated 07.08.2025 in S.C.No.66 of 2022 on the file of the Assistant Session Court, Denkanikottai and directing the Court below to number the petition filed in Crl.M.P.sr.No.177 of 2025.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A. Sundara Vadhanan For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate Crl. Side
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to examine one Mr.Manjunath, Sub Inspector of Police, along with CCTV footages collected by him.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that there was a murder attempt on his life, thought it was originally filed as accident case later altered to attempted to murder case. The Sub Inspector of Police, namely Manjunath, has enquired the issue and he has also the collected CCTV footages. However, the prosecution conveniently not examined him as witness and not even added as witness. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition to examine the said Sub Inspector as one of the witness on the prosecution side. However, the said petition has been returned by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.
3. Since it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are materials collected by the Sub Inspector of Police, who was omitted to
be cited as witness by the the prosecution side, the Trial Court ought to have verified that aspect. In fact the Trial Court ought to have asked the public prosecutor or the prosecution side as to whether any such materials were collected by the Sub Inspector. If it is so, the Trial Court ought to have permitted the prosecution to examine further witness, whereas the petition has been simply returned.
4. Though the defacto complainant has no say in adding witnesses, the fact remains that when there are materials to show that investigation is done by the other Police officer, the Court itself could have examined the Police Officer as witness on the side of the prosecution.
5. In such view of the matter, the order impugned is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to number the application and find out whether any such material is collected by the Sub Inspector. If any such material is available, the same shall be brought on record.
6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
7. The Registry is directed to return the originals, which has been filed along with this petition, to the petitioner today itself. 09-10-2025 pvs Note: I.T. on 09.10.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To Inspector of Police, Thali Police Station, Thali, Krishnangiri District.
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
pvs CRL OP No. 27557 of 09-10-2025