L.Srinivasan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.MP.No.23024 of 2025

1. Dr.L.Srinivasan S/o.Loganathan, Government Quarters, Primary Health Center, Ganapathipalayam, Erode-638 153.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram Range, Chennai District. Cr.No.7/2018.

Respondent(s) PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to set aside docket order dated 17.11.2025 made in C.A.No.12363 of 2025 in CC No.21/2020 on the file of Learned Additional Mahila Judge, Egmore, Chennai. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.B.Mohan For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Santhosh Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to set aside docket order dated 17.11.2025 passed in C.A.No.12363 of 2025 in CC No.21/2020 by the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an accused facing trial in C.C.No.21 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai for offences under Sections 406, 498A and 506(i) of IPC. PW1 (wife of the petitioner) had earlier filed a private complaint for offence under Section 494 IPC. The petitioner had filed a quash petition before this Court and this Court was pleased to quash the private complaint for offence under Section 494 IPC .Subsequently, during the course of the trial in C.C.No.21 of 2020, the learned trial Judge wanted to frame additional charge for offence under Section 494 IPC.

However, since it was brought to notice of this Court that the charge under Section 494 IPC has been earlier quashed by this Court, the learned Magistrate had again listed the matter for framing charges and later charge under 494 IPC was dropped and when the case now stands posted for judgment, at this stage, prosecution has filed an application seeking to recall PW1. The petitioner is intending to file counter. While so, the petitioner has sought the copies of the docket orders from 06.11.

14.11.2025 for the purpose of further proceedings. However, the learned Magistrate had returned the same with an endorsement that adjudication orders will be available in e-court and thereby, the present petition has been filed challenging the order of return.

3.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the adjudication notes are very much available in the e-court proceedings and thereby, the learned Judge has returned the application. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5.Admittedly, the petitioner has also filed e-court proceedings before this Court. There is nothing wrong in the learned Judge returning the copy application stating that adjudication orders will be available in e-court. 6.In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the docket order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Egmore, Chennai.

3/5

7.Accordingly, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is attempting to fill up the lacuna by recalling PW1 and at this stage, the petitioner may be permitted to oppose the application. This Court finds that it is the prerogative of the petitioner to object to any petition that is detrimental to his interest and no specific order to that effect needs to be passed by this Court. 03-12-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes sms To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram Range, Chennai District. Cr.No.7/2018.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

4/5

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.

sms 03-12-2025 5/5