Ranatheve vs Prabakaran
2021 Latest Caselaw 23146 Mad

                                                                         Crl.O.P(MD)No.19822 of 2018


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 25.11.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                              Crl.O.P(MD)No.19822 of 2018
                                                         and
                                              Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9068 of 2018

                     Ranatheve                                          ... Petitioner/
                                                                            Accused

                                                          Vs

                     Prabakaran                                         ... Respondent/
                                                                            Complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
                     to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Pattukottai,
                     Thanjavur District, to expunge the disparaging remarks made by the trial
                     Court in S.T.C.No.45 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned Judicial
                     Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.


                                   For Petitioner     : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan
                                   For Respondent     : No Appearance


                                                      ORDER

The recorded proceedings shows that on 06.06.2018, when the

complainant was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused put the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD)No.19822 of 2018

irrelevant questions. That was objected by the trial Judge, stating that he

must put only relevant questions. At that time, the Advocate for the

accused raised his voice and told the Court that the Judge can decide the

case as he likes. He also made disturbances to the Court proceedings. So

with the above said, he left the Court Hall. So this proceeding has been

recorded, when the deposition itself.

2. This ought to be expunged stating that no such observation

is required to be made. The learned counsel for the petitioner could also

rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the

case of Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa and Others, 1995 Supp (4)

Supreme Court Cases 169 stating that it was highly unnecessary, but I

am unable to accept the argument that has been advanced by the counsel

for the petitioner. The trial Court is well within its power, to record the

happenings, while the trial is going on. So the power of the Court to

record their proceedings, cannot be questioned. But at the same time, it

appears that some sort of trouble arose between the counsel for the

accused and the trial Judge. When the objection was made by the Judge,

regarding the manner of cross-examination, it appears that this provoked

the learned counsel for the accused to raise his voice and left the Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD)No.19822 of 2018

Hall without completing the cross-examination. So this is a simple issue

which bound to occur in every day Court proceedings. Thereafter, it

appears that the cross-examination of the witness went on smoothly on

the subsequent hearing. It also appears that no proceedings was initiated

by the trial Judge against the above said Advocate, appearing for the

accused person. Recording his conduct in the Court. So nothing is going

to be served in keeping this observation on record. So, keeping such an

observation on record, may for unnecessarily be a mental agony to the

Advocate on record for the accused. So I am considered about that this

record of proceedings or the observation is liable to be removed.

3. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                                     25.11.2021

                     Index    :Yes/No
                     Internet :Yes/No
                     btr/gbg

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD)No.19822 of 2018

G.ILANGOVAN,J.

btr/gbg

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.O.P(MD)No.19822 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9068 of 2018

25.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis