Madras High Court
A.Kalaiselvan vs State Rep. By on 1 July, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.15057 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.15057 of 2022
A.Kalaiselvan ... Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
W-8, All Women Police Station,
Thirumangalam,
Chennai 600 101. ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.773 of 2022 dated 13.06.2022 made in
S.C.No.36 of 2018, W-8 AWPS pending Trial on the file of the Special Court of
Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai 600 104.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jothi for P.Rathanavel
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15057 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the dismissal
order of the Special Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act,
Chennai, filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to cross examine PW1, who is none
other than the petitioner's wife .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that PW1 was cross
examined earlier for sometimes and now new facts have came to the knowledge
of the petitioner. He would further submit that the divorce proceedings also
ended in his favour and those documents to be produced before the Court
through P.W.1. Evidence by the PW1 in earlier proceedings are relevant. Hence,
he submitted that since the accused is facing severe charges under POCSO Act,
those documents are required and further cross examination is necessary.
3. Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that PW1 was already cross examined several times. Therefore, the trial
court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he opposes
the prayer sought by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15057 of 2022
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of
the view that though cross examination cannot be prolonged or protracted for
whims and fancies of the parties. Cross examination should be done on the date
fixed by the trial Court, in the event of same could not be completed on the
same date, it can be done in some other date as fixed by the Court. Though the
trial Court order shows that PW1 was already cross examined on several times.
However, considering the nature of the charges faced by the petitioner under
POCSO Act, which was initiated by the wife against her own husband, the
proved facts in the previous proceedings between the husband and wife are
relevant for proper adjudication of the entire charge.
6.Such view of the matter, this court is inclined to set aside the order. The
Trial Court shall fix specific date after 18.07.2022 for cross examination of
PW1 and allow the petitioner to cross examine the witness PW1 on the basis of
the certificate copies of the earlier judgments.
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
shk/nti
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15057 of 2022
7.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed.
01.07.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
shk/nti
To
1. The Special Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases
under POCSO Act,
Chennai 600 104.
2.The Inspector of Police,
W-8, All Women Police Station,
Thirumangalam,
Chennai 600 101.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.15057 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
