Judgment :- The petitioners, who are the accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.56 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, and facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have filed the above Crl.O.P. against the order, dated 30.6.2008 passed in C.M.P.No.2178 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the above Crl.O.P. are set out as under:- a. One Mrs. Kavitha Stephen, the defacto complainant, lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein with the first respondent and on the basis of the same, a case in Cr.No.56 of 2003 was registered for the alleged offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completing the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.2178 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor. b. It is seen that the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 was commenced on 23. 2007 and the same was completed only on 16. 2008 and in between there were thirteen adjournments and only on three hearing dates, the accused were present before the court and on the other dates of hearing, their appearance was dispensed with on the petitions filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. c. It is further seen that the delay in completing the chief examination was due to the fact that P.W.1 had left for Canada for employment purpose and as the said fact was brought to the notice of the court by the respondent on 20.6.2007, the case was adjourned to various dates. But, prior to 20.6.2007, the prosecution had not informed the court about the departure of P.W.1 from India to Canada. d. It is further seen that even though the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 was over on 16. 2008 and P.W.2, the father of P.W.1, had been examined-in-chief on 16. 2008, they were not cross examined by the accused. e. On 16. 2008, a written memo was submitted by P.W.1 through the Assistant Public Prosecutor and based on that the prosecution has filed C.M.P.No.2178 of 2008 purported to be under Section 311 Cr.P.C. In the said memo, it is stated that since P.W.1 is leaving for a foreign country for her employment, it was prayed that her cross examination to be completed on or before 30.6.2008. After taking notice, the accused sought for time to file counter and time was granted till 30.6.2008 for filing counter and disposal of the said C.M.P. A counter statement was filed by the accused opposing the prayer made by P.W.1. 3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the delay in completing the examination of P.W.1 was only due to the failure of P.W.1 to appear before the court and the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, since the said petition can be filed only by the prosecution or the defence and not by any witness. 4. It is further stated in the counter statement that the accused have applied for the certified copies of the deposition of prosecution witnesses on 16. 2008 but the same were yet to be furnished and also the copies of Exs.P2 to P5 have not been furnished to them and at the request of the defence, the court directed to furnish copies of the same, but the same have not been furnished till now. Therefore, the defence was not in a position to cross examine P.W.1 effectively. 5. It is further contended that the witnesses are expected to be present as and when they are summoned to appear before the court or when they are directed to be present in court, but they cannot dictate the terms either to the court or to the defence that they will appear only according to their whims and fancies and their examination-in-chief and cross examination should be done in the manner prescribed by them. 6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the request made by P.W.1 and the objections made by the defence, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that since P.W.1 represented that she has got a job at Canada and she had to leave India on or before 30.6.2008, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce witnesses and since P.W.1 was away from the country, she could not be produced by the prosecution and after her return, she appeared before the court and the examination-in-chief had been completed on 16. 2008 and in such circumstances, the request made by P.W.1 and the prosecution cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable. 7. 2008 and in such circumstances, the request made by P.W.1 and the prosecution cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also observed that sufficient time has been granted to the accused to cross examine P.W.1. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also further observed that simply because of P.W.1 had lodged the complaint and she had to appear before the court to tender evidence, it does not mean that she should lose her job, which she has got in Canada, stay back in India only for the purpose of giving evidence. 9. Heard both. 10. Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petition filed by the prosecution under 311 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and a witness cannot dictate terms to the court that her examination should be completed on or before a particular date. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused applied for certified copies of deposition of witnesses on 16. 2008 itself, but the same were not furnished till 30.6.2008 and also the copies of Exs.P2 to P5 were not furnished and therefore, the accused were unable to effectively cross examine P.W.1. 12. The learned counsel submitted that at the request made by the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the office to furnish the copies on or before 7. 2008 and accordingly, the copies were receievd only on 7. 2008. But the learned Judicial Magistrate has directed the petitioners/accused to cross examine P.W.1 on 7. 2008 itself without giving sufficient opportunity for the accused. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side, perused the materials on record and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. 14. The facts narrated above show that the failure of P.W.1 to appear before the court, after she was partly examined-in-chief was due to the fact that she had to leave the country in connection with her job in Canada and further she was not summoned to appear before the court. At no point of time, as pointed out by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the prosecution had not brought to the notice of the court about P.W.1s absence from the country till 20.6.2007. 15. It is further seen that from 23. 2007 to 16. At no point of time, as pointed out by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the prosecution had not brought to the notice of the court about P.W.1s absence from the country till 20.6.2007. 15. It is further seen that from 23. 2007 to 16. 2008, the case was posted for hearing on 13 occasions and only on three hearing dates, the accused appeared before the court and on the other hearing dates, their appearance was dispensed with on the petitions filed by them under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and as such it cannot be said that the accused have been prejudiced. 16. Though, it is seen from the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate that the copy application seeking for certified copies of deposition of witnesses was filed on 16. 2008 and the direction was issued to the office to furnish the copies of the same on or before 7. 2008; the xerox copies of the deposition of witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 3 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which contain the seal of the court, show that copy application No.48 of 2008 had been filed only on 26. 2008 and stamp papers were called on 26. 2008 and the stamp papers were deposited on 7. 2008 and the copies were made ready on 7. 2008 and the copies were received on 7. 2008. 17. From a reading of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, it is seen that P.W.1 postponed her departure to Canada to 7. 2008 and only taking note of the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the accused to cross examine P.W.1 on 7. 2008. Admittedly, the copies of the deposition of witnesses had been furnished to the accused on 7. 2008 itself. If the defence was not fully prepared to cross examine P.W.1 on 7. 2008, it could have been done, on any date, before 7. 2008, but instead of doing that, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is sought to be set aside in the above Crl.O.P. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at the instance of a witness is not maintainable cannot be accepted. It is no doubt, true that the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C came to be filed by the prosecution at the request of P.W.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at the instance of a witness is not maintainable cannot be accepted. It is no doubt, true that the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C came to be filed by the prosecution at the request of P.W.1. But when facts, warranting exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., are brought to the notice of the court, it is the duty of the court to exercise that power and decide whether the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is strictly maintainable or not. Technicalities should not stand in the way of the court while rendering justice to the parties. 19. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads follows:- "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 as 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 evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." A careful reading of the said provision shows that any Court may at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code, examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. Therefore, in this case, when P.W.1 was in attendance before the court, it was the duty of the court to see that her examination is completed as expeditiously as possible. 20. A perusal of Section 309 Cr.P.C. also show that in every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible and in particular when the examination of witness has once begun, the same shall be continued day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined; further when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing. 21. Here, in this case, though the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 was completed on 16. 2008 itself, to enable the defence to prepare its case and further to enable them to cross examine P.W.1 effectively, the case was adjourned to 16. 21. Here, in this case, though the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 was completed on 16. 2008 itself, to enable the defence to prepare its case and further to enable them to cross examine P.W.1 effectively, the case was adjourned to 16. 2008 and thereafter, since the accused/petitioners brought to the notice of the learned Judicial Magistrate that they were yet to get the certified copies of the deposition of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P2 to P5, further adjournment was granted and a direction was issued to the office to furnish certified copies on or before 7. 2008 and the copies have been made ready on 7. 2008, but the accused/petitioners received it only on 7. 2008 and thus, it is seen that the accused/petitioners herein have been given enough opportunity to cross examine P.W.1. 22. As pointed out above, even if the petitioners were not able to cross examine P.W.1 on 7. 2008, she could have been cross examined on the subsequent dates, but before 7. 2008. The failure on the part of the petitioners to cross examine P.W.1 as aforesaid shows that the petitioners are not really interested in completing the proceedings at the earliest, but they are in the habit of dragging on the proceedings with an ulterior motive and such ulterior motive may be to make P.W.1 lose her job in Canada as rightly pointed out by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 23. It is pertinent to point out that the right to speedy trial is not only a fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but such right is also imbibed under the said Article for the complainant as well. Simply because P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant in the case, had lodged the complaint, she need not and should not suffer due to the delay in conducting the proceedings in the court. Taking these aspects into consideration, the learned Judicial Magistrate has accepted the request made by P.W.1. The constitutional guarantee of speedy trial emanates under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and properly reflects under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and it could be construed that the order has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 309 Cr.P.C. also. 24. Taking these aspects into consideration, the learned Judicial Magistrate has accepted the request made by P.W.1. The constitutional guarantee of speedy trial emanates under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and properly reflects under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and it could be construed that the order has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 309 Cr.P.C. also. 24. It is a well-acknowledged principle that where there is no specific provision, the criminal court, no less than civil court, has the inherent power to mould the procedure to enable it to pass such orders as the ends of justice is required. 25. Obviously, the power is given to the court in order that it might do complete justice between the parties. The limit of the courts jurisdiction is dictated by the exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense are the only safeguards. 26. If the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate is judged in the light of the aforesaid principles, it cannot be said that the order suffers from any irregularity or illegality, but only to secure the ends of justice, the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the order and if this court accepts the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the order is set aside, this Court is of the considered view that it will result in miscarriage of justice and it will not promote the cause of justice. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above Crl.O.P. Accordingly, the above Criminal Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Connected M.P. is also dismissed.