Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2709 (MAD)

Venkatachalam v. Theertha Giri

2013-07-29

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment :- The short facts of the case are as follows:-The petitioner herein / complainant had filed a case against the respondents herein / accused for an offence under Sections 323, 337, 294(B), 506(ii) of IPC, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thirupattur. The said case has been numbered as C.C.No.827 of 2002. In the said case, the petitioner and one Jegadeesan had given evidence. As he was to examine another two witnesses on his side, his counsel requested the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirupattur, Vellore District for an adjournment in order to produce the witnesses, but the learned Magistrate had closed the hearing of the petitioner's side evidence and therefore, the petitioner has filed the above Crl.M.P and sought transfer of the case to some other Court. 2. The respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the transfer petition. The respondent stated that the petitioner was examined on 23.11.2004. Subsequently, the case has been posted for complainant's side evidence, but the complainant had not produced his side witness for seven hearings. Thereafter, hearing of the petitioner's side evidence has been closed, as such, the above M.P. has been filed to drag on the trial Court proceedings. Hence, the respondent prayed to dismiss the above transfer petition. 3. The learned judge after hearing both sides, dismissed the said petition. 4. Against the dismissal of the said petition, the above revision has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was to produce two more witnesses viz., Chinnakannu Reddy and Mohan to establish his case against the accused, but the learned Judicial Magistrate had not given any opportunity for producing the witnesses and suo moto closed the petitioner's evidence, as such, the petitioner has been prejudiced. Further, the accused threatened the witness, viz., Mohan not to give evidence, hence, the witness Mohan is frightened to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The highly competent counsel further contended that the petitioner proposed to examine Chinnakannu and Mohan before framing of charges. Both witnesses were ready to give evidence on 15.12.2005. While the case was called, the learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court had requested the learned Judicial Magistrate to pause over the case for giving evidence, but the learned Magistrate suo moto closed the petitioner's side evidence. Further, the accused threatened the witness Mohan not to give evidence. Both witnesses were ready to give evidence on 15.12.2005. While the case was called, the learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court had requested the learned Judicial Magistrate to pause over the case for giving evidence, but the learned Magistrate suo moto closed the petitioner's side evidence. Further, the accused threatened the witness Mohan not to give evidence. The said Mohan is an eye-witness and therefore, his evidence is of primary importance. As he was threatened by the accused, he could not appear before the concerned Court. The very competent counsel further contended that if the case is transferred from the Judicial Magistrate's Court to some other Court, the accused will not be prejudiced and character of the case will be intact. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that at the time of filing the private complaint, the complainant had listed the said two witnesses, but they did not appear in order to give evidence in the said case for 7 hearings. Thereafter, the complainant's side evidence had been closed. As such, the learned Judicial Magistrate had given sufficient opportunity to the complainant. In order to drag on the proceedings and with mala-fide intention to harass the accused, the transfer petition has been filed with blemished grounds. The very competent counsel further submitted that there was no threat towards witness Mohan, but the complainant's statement that the said Mohan had been threatened by the accused is only a hypothetical theory. The private complaint has been filed in the year 2002 and the said case has been dragged on by the complainant by way of not extending his co-operation to the Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate had given seven adjournments for complainant's side evidence, but in spite of it, he did not produce his witnesses. Therefore, the hearing of evidence of petitioner's side was closed. As per the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the accused is entitled for a speedy trial and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is an appropriate one and hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above revision. 7. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on scrutinizing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court does not find any lapse in the impugned order. 7. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on scrutinizing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court does not find any lapse in the impugned order. This Court's further view is that the learned Magistrate had adjourned the case 7 times for the complainant's side witnesses, even then, the complainant had not produced the list of witnesses, therefore, the evidence of the complainant's side had been closed after giving sufficient opportunity. Further, the complainant had stated that the accused had threatened his witness not to give evidence in support of the complainant. Supporting his allegation there is no material evidence i.e, police complaint. If the complainant had intention of establishing his case by way of producing the witness he can file a petition for reopening the evidence before the same Court instead of transfer petition. This Court further observes that the allegation levelled against the learned Magistrate, that he had closed the evidence suo moto, is not proper, as sufficient opportunities had already been given for the revision petitioner to examine his witnesses. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above revision. 8. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.164 of 2005, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore dated 21.06.2006 is confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.