Murugan v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.08.2017 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.O.P.(MD)No.9940 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6802 of 2017 1.Murugan 2.Rajapandi 3.Vellaichamy : Petitioners / Accused -VsState represented through The Sub Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Aruppukottai, Crime No.54 of 2014.
: Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records pertaining to Cr.M.P.No.5933 of 2016 in S.T.C. No.703 of 2017 and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, dated 09.02.2017 and pass an order to recall the prosecution witnesses No.1 to 5 for the purpose of cross examination.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl. side)
O R D E R
This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, in Cr.M.P.No.5933 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.703 of 2017.
2.The petitioners are the accused in the criminal case which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 332 and 506(i) of I.P.C. During the pendency of the case in S.T.C.No.703 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, it is stated that at the time of examination of P.W.1 to P.W.5, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of examining them. It was further stated that after the examination of few other witnesses, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the prosecution witnesses namely, P.W.1 to P.W.5 for further examination. Though the petitioner has given some reasons for examining P.W.1 to P.W.5, the trial Court found that the application to recall was only to drag the proceedings and that the petitioner who has not availed the opportunity when it was specifically available to him, cannot be given any indulgence. The lower Court also considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
the merit of the case. Since the petitioner has not given any acceptable reason to recall the prosecution witnesses, it was stated by the leaned Judicial Magistrate that the petition filed at the fag end of the trial lacks bona fide and the facts and circumstances warrant an order in favour of the petitioner. 3.The question before this Court is whether the petitioners be given one more opportunity to cross examine the witnesses?
4.Having regard to the nature of criminal case and going by the narration of events, as found in the petition, this Court is convinced that the petitioner can be given one more opportunity. Though the failure to cross examine P.W.1 to P.W.5 earlier has not been properly explained before this Court, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to allow this Criminal Original Petition, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) payable to the credit of Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, in Cr.M.P.No.5933 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.703 of 2014, dated 09.02.2017, is set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.5933 of 2016 is allowed.
The petitioner is directed to cooperate for the early disposal by promptly cross examining the witnesses without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Aruppukottai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
Copy to:The Co-Ordinator Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.C.M.Arumugam, Advocate Sr.no.73419 sm:CM-MSA:SAR 1:4.9.2017:2p/6c CRL.O.P.(MD)No.9940 of 2017 18.08.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/