Madras High Court
X.Jeyaraj vs Mrs.Sathiya Devi on 25 November, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16812 of 2018
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.7437 of 2018
X.Jeyaraj : Petitioner/Petitioner/
Complainant
Vs.
1.Mrs.Sathiya Devi,
The Chairman,
Padmanabhapuram Municipality,
Padmanabhapuram & Post,
Kanyakumari District.
2.Hari Kumar,
Padmanabhapuram Municipality,
Padmanabhapuram & Post,
Kanyakumari District. : Respondent/Respondent/
Accused
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in CMP No.1157 of 2017 in
CC No.181 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Padmanabhapuram, dated 05.04.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
For Respondents : Mr.Pala Ramasamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking to set aside the order that has
been passed by the trial court in Cr.MP No.1157 of 2017 in CC No.
181 of 2016.
2.The case of the petitioner in brief:-
The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents in
CC No.181 of 2016 before the trial court for the offence under
section 294(b), 341, 506(i) and 500 IPC. In the complaint, it has
been stated that the first respondent is the Chairman of the
Padmanabhapuram Municipal Corporation. The 2nd respondent is
her husband. On 02.09.2013, the petitioner approached the above
said Municipal Corporation for water service connection to his
house for payment of registration fee of Rs.50/-. But no steps have
been taken for giving water connection. He also remitted the tax
arrears for the building bearing No.18/27C. He also applied for
plan approval for his land compromised in R.S No.41-3-1B of
Kalkulam Village, Padmanabhapuram Municipality. He visited the
Municipal Corporation Office on 26.03.2014 at about 11.00 am to
enquire about the water service connection and plan approval. At
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that time, the respondents wrongfully restrained the petitioner and
abused him in filthy language and also tore off his shirt and chased
him away from the Municipal Office. For this allegation, he filed a
criminal case to punish the respondents and claiming compensation
of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
3.He was examined himself along with two other witnesses as
PW1 to PW3. The respondents had set up a plea of alibi. So the
petitioner filed Cr.MP No.1157 of 2018 to reopen the case for the
purpose of examining the municipal staff and the eye witnesses
namely Mohan, Murali and K.Xavier. That application was came to
be dismissed by the trial court. Against which, this petition came
to be filed.
4.Heard both sides.
5.A short point involved in this matter is that whether the
petitioner can be allowed to examine further witnesses to prove his
case against the respondents. That petition came to be dismissed
by the trial court stating that neither in the chief examination of the
complainant, nor in the original complaint witnesses list, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proposed witnesses have been mentioned as eye witnesses. So on
that ground, it came to be dismissed.
6.I am unable to agree with the stand that has been taken by
the trial court. It is purely a technical defect that has been made
by the petitioner at the time of filing the original complaint. But he
has mentioned in the complaint that the occurrence was witnessed
by several persons, who were available in the place of occurrence.
In para 3 of the complaint, the following averments have been
made:-
'Due to the force applied by the 2nd accused,
the complainant fell down, all these incidents are
seen by the public and employees of municipality.'
7.So when a specific averment made in the complaint, the
stand taken by the trial court that the proposed witnesses are not
mentioned in the complaint should not be a ground for rejecting the
petition. In the compliant, only two persons has been shown as
witnesses. It is a basic thing that every trial is a journey towards
finding of truth. So for the purpose of finding of the truth, when
the petitioner says that eye witness are available to give evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
about the occurrence, it may not be proper on the part of the trial
court to reject the request without any valid reasons. When the
matter was taken up for hearing, at the time of argument, the
learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment
of the Punjab-Haryana High Court in the case of Dalip Singh
Gujar Singh Vs. R.P.Biswasj (AIR 1967 PH 95), for the purpose
of argument that when the proposed witnesses are not mentioned
in the complaint or examined during pre-cognizance stage,
permission should not be granted to the complainant to examine
further witnesses.
8.The learned counsel would straightway rely upon para 11 of
the above said judgment. The Panjab-Haryana High Court relied
upon the judgment of the Full Bench in Heman Ram's case (AIR
1945 Lah.201), wherein it has been mentioned that when the
prosecution closed the pre-charge evidence and excepting the
witnesses named in the list, no permission should be granted to the
complainant to examine further witnesses. But here, the position is
entirely different. As mentioned earlier, in the complaint itself, the
petitioner stated that the occurrence was witnessed by the public
as well as the staff of the Municipal Corporation. Now the proposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
witnesses are staff members of the Municipal Corporation. So the
observation made in the conclusion, that has been rendered by the
trial court is absolutely faulty and cannot be sustained.
9.Section 311 Cr.P.C gave wide power to the court to examine
or re-examine the witnesses at any stage of the proceedings. As
mentioned earlier, every endeavour is to be made by the trial court
to find out the truth and when such a request has been made by the
complainant, I am of the considered view that they must be
properly considered. So the impugned order of the trial is liable to
be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside and permission is
granted to the petitioner to examine the additional witnesses that
was mentioned in the petition.
10.In fine, this criminal original petition stands allowed. The
impugned order passed by the trial court in Cr.M.P No.1157 of
2017 in CC No.181 of 2016 is set aside. Since the matter is of the
year 2016, there shall be a direction to the trial court to complete
the trial process within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and after completing the trial
process, dispose the same on merits. The compliance report must
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be sent to the Registry forthwith. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To,
The Judicial Magistrate,
Padmanabhapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.OP(MD)No.16812 of 2018
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
