Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 118 (MAD)

Ramesh v. D. Ravichandran

2024-01-08

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

body2024
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to call for the records and set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No. 5537 of 2023 in C.C.No.29 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Palani dated 08.12.2023.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5537 of 2023 in C.C.No.29 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Palani dated 08.12.2023. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused in a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level, Palani. The learned Judicial Magistrate had, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either, dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.5537 of 2023 in CC.No.29 of 2017. 3. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier, 311 petition was filed and it was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. At that time, the learned counsel appearing for the accused before the trial Court did not put questions regarding acceptance of the money as to whether it was received in the residence of the accused or the residence of the defacto complainant or anywhere outside. Also, he wanted to verify the Aadhar details. Therefore, he sought to recall P.W1/the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate to raise further questions in cross-examination. The learned Magistrate refused to entertain the petition on the ground that the complainant was exhaustively cross-examined earlier. Only at the stage of arguments, the petition had been filed. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petition filed under 311 Cr.P.C., is not allowed, it will cause prejudice to the accused. Therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside. 4. Considering the fact that in criminal cases, when the witnesses appear before the trial Court to depose evidence, the learned counsel appearing for the accused shall cross-examine the witnesses then and there, only in rare cases, the right of the accused to cross-examine the witnesses is deferred and in those cases, the petition filed under 311 Cr.P.C. is ordered. 4. Considering the fact that in criminal cases, when the witnesses appear before the trial Court to depose evidence, the learned counsel appearing for the accused shall cross-examine the witnesses then and there, only in rare cases, the right of the accused to cross-examine the witnesses is deferred and in those cases, the petition filed under 311 Cr.P.C. is ordered. In the course of time, the learned counsel for the accused invariably reserve their right to cross-examine the witnesses at the whims and fancies of the accused. This results in embarrassing situation to both the complainant/victim of crime and witnesses. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in CDJ 2015 SC 115 had deprecated the practise of trial Courts permitting the petition filed under 311 Cr.P.C., leniently and had directed all the High Courts in the country to circular the said judgment to all the trial Courts in the respective States under High Courts with a warning that any deviation by the trial Judges will attract serious repercussions. When the said judgment was circulated to the trial Judges, the trial Judges are very careful. 6. In this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level, Palani had given reasons for dismissing the petition of the accused stating that the complainant was exhaustively cross-examined. Only when the case reached the stage of arguments, the accused had filed the petition to recall the complainant as P.W1 for further cross-examination, which cannot be permitted. Exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot dilute the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in CDJ 2015 SC 115. 7. In the light of the above, this Criminal Original Petition lacks merits and hence, it is dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level, Palani is directed to dispose of CC.No.29 of 2017 within the reasonable period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Post the matter for reporting compliance.