Madras High Court
Sundarapandian vs The Inspector Of Police on 16 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10840 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10840 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6814 of 2022
Sundarapandian ...Petitioner
vs
The Inspector of Police
Sivagangai Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
In Crime No.433 of 2017 ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to set aside the order dated 13.04.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.603 of
2022 in CC.No.23 of 2020 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.Pinaygash for
Ms.P.Krishnaveni
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivakumar
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10840 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order
dated 13.04.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.603 of 2022 in CC.No.23 of 2020
on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagangai District.
2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is
the accused before the trial Court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sivagangai, in CC.No.23 of 2020, which arose out of a road traffic accident.
3.It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
P.W1 and P.W2 were examined on 15.09.2020 and P.W3 to P.W5 were
examined on 21.10.2021. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel
for the Petitioner that at the time, when the prosecution had examined the
prosecution witnesses, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/accused was
not available. Therefore, the cross-examination was deferred. Subsequently,
the Petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.603 of 2012 in CC.No.23 of 2020
under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall the witnesses, P.W1 to P.W5. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10840 of 2022
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai had dismissed the said
Petition, vide order dated 13.04.2022.
4.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
that the valuable right of the Petitioner for a fair trial is affected by the order
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai. Therefore, the
Petitioner had approached this Court by filing this Petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the Respondent by
way of reply submitted that in the Petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.,
the reasons for not cross examining the witnesses on the date, when the
witnesses were available, had not been clearly stated. Therefore, the learned
Judge had passed a well reasoned order. He would further submit that in the
order itself, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, had quoted
the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod
Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in CDJ 2015 SC 115.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10840 of 2022
6.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the order
passed by the learned trial Judge, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai,
when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the guidelines in Vinod
Kumar's case (cited supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
deprecated the practise of recalling the witnesses at the convenience of the
accused, thereby delaying the trial, which is anathema to the Constitutional
provisions of speedy trial, particularly in Criminal Cases and is a guaranteed
right to the citizen of India by the Constitution of India, the very same
provision is taken for granted by the accused, who happened to be the
citizen of India under the “principle of fair trial”, thereby causing
harassment to the witnesses, who are also the citizen of India.
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had repeatedly issued the guidelines to
the trial Courts not to encourage the dilatory tactics either by the accused or
by the Counsels and in the Vinod Kumar's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had issued directions to the High Courts to circulate the judgment to each of
the trial Judges irrespective of the cadre right from Judicial Magistrate up to
District Sessions Judge. Therefore, the trial Judges are aware of the
guidelines issued in this landmark judgment. Even after the Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10840 of 2022
warning that action will be initiated against the trial Judges for prolonging
the trial and encouraging the delaying tactics, the Counsels are ignoring the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per Article 142, the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is law of the land. The trial Judges
are bound by the same. When they violate the guidelines, the trial Judges
are landing in trouble. Ignoring all these provisions, it is noted that
invariably the Petitions are filed before the Trial Court lackadaisically
without any reason, which is deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the very same Judgment. The reason mentioned by the learned Counsel for
the Petitioner cannot at all be accepted when the trial Judge had rejected the
Petition in the light of the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vinod Kumar's case. Therefore, it is not an appropriate case to invoke
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
8.In fine, this Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Internet:Yes./No 16.09.2022
Index:Yes/No
mm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10840 of 2022
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mm
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Sivagangai Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
CRL.O.P (MD) No.10840 of 2022
16.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
