Peter vs The Inspector Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 8546 Mad

                                                                       Crl.R.C.(MD).No.744 of 2023

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               Dated : 18.07.2023

                                                     CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

                                        Crl.RC(MD)No.744 of 2023
                                                  and
                                   Crl.MP(MD)Nos.10170 & 10173 of 2023

                1.Peter
                2.Sumathi                       ... Petitioners/Accused 5 & 6
                                               Vs.


                1.The Inspector of Police,
                  Perumalpuram Police Station,
                  Palayamkottai,
                  Tirunelveli.                 ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

                2.Seetha                       ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant

                PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
                of Cr.P.C., to call for records pertaining to the order passed by the learned
                Magistrate under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., dated 10.11.2022 in C.C.No.222 of
                2018 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, and set aside the
                same as illegal.
                                   For Petitioners   : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
                                   For R1            : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy
                                                      Government Advocate (Crl.Side)



                1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           Crl.R.C.(MD).No.744 of 2023

                                                        ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioners to set aside the impugned

order passed by the Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, in C.C.No.222 of

2018, dated 10.11.2022.

2.It is seen that the defacto complainant said to have assaulted by the

petitioners and others. The Investigating Agency deleted their names in the final

report. After recording the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the petitioners are arrayed

as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by the impugned docket order dated

10.11.2022. The said impugned docket order dated 10.11.2022 was challenged in

the present Revision.

3.Pending the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions,

would submit that even though they challenged the impugned order of array of

the accused, he does not challenge the same and seeks only to direct the learned

trial Judge to re-call the witnesses on their behalf.

4.The said remedy is already available to the petitioners as per the

Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of this

Revision with the following direction:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.744 of 2023

i) The learned Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, is directed to

permit the petitioners to re-call the witnesses already examined and dispose the

trial in C.C.No.222 of 2018 after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners

as per the law.

5.With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

6.However, considering the age of the petitioners, the personal appearance

of the petitioners before the trial Court is hereby, ordered to be dispensed with,

on conditions that they shall appear at the time of initial questioning,

proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing judgment

and on the hearings, specifically directed by the trial court. The petitioners are

further directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit that they will be

duly represented by a counsel on all hearing dates and that the Counsel

representing them will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the date of

chief examination. The petitioners shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses.

The petitioners shall appear before the Court in the event their presence is

insisted by the trial judge for the purpose of identification. If the petitioners

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.744 of 2023

adopt any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist for their

appearance and deal with the petitioners in accordance with the judgment of

Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh,

reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.

18.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dss

To

1.The learned Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

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

4. The Section Officer, Criminal Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.744 of 2023

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

dss

Crl.RC(MD)No.744 of 2023 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.10170 & 10173 of 2023

18.07.2023

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