Madras High Court
R.Kalimuthu vs The State Through on 8 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.249 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.249 of 2025
and
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.180 of 2025
R.Kalimuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Koombur Police Station,
Dindigul District. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 447 of BNSS,
2023, to withdraw and transfer the Spl.S.C.No.363/2023 pending on the
file of the Special Court for POSCO Act Cases, Dindigul to the file of
any other Special Court, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arun Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.249 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to withdraw and
transfer the case in Spl.S.C.No.363/2023 pending on the file of the
Special Court for POSCO Act Cases, Dindigul to the file of any other
Special Court, Madurai.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
3. The petitioner, who is facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.363/2023
pending on the file of the Special Court for POSCO Act Cases, Dindigul,
for the offence under Sections 5(1) and 6 of the Protection of Child from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 366 of IPC and Section 9 of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, has filed this petition seeking
to transfer the case in Spl.S.C.No.363/2023 pending on the file of the
Special Court for POSCO Act Cases, Dindigul to the file of any other
Special Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the present presiding
officer, who took in-charge during August, 2024 has been frequently
postponing the case for short intervals and therefore, the petitioner is
unable to formulate the defence and cross examine the witnesses in such
a short period. Cross-examination has also not been done in a proper
context.
5. The further contention of the petitioner is that certain
documents have been marked, though there is an objection from the
petitioner and the objection of the petitioner has also not been recorded.
One such incident is that school Headmaster, PW13, has been examined
and through her, no document has been marked. On the contrary, the
Investigation Officer, PW24, marked Exs.P22, 23 and 24, mark sheet,
birth certificate and the transfer certificate of the victim, which is
inadmissible. The petitioner had objected the same. To scrap the
evidence, a recall petition has been filed in Crl.M.P.No.1865 of 2024 to
recall PWs.22,23 and 24. Earlier, even though the prosecution witnesses
were not completed, the same was not closed and the petitioner was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 25.10.2024. After examination
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of PWs.23 and 24, again the petitioner was examined on 16.12.2024
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which would only show that the trial Court,
without following the procedure, is proceeding the case further and
hence, the petitioner would be denied justice.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
official respondents, objecting to the petitioner's submission, submitted
that the petitioner in this case and all the witnesses have been examined
and the case is at penultimate stage. The petitioner had to cross-examine
PWs.22,23 and 34, Investigation Officers, for which, earlier a recall
petition was filed in Crl.M.P.No.417 of 2024 to recall PW22 and the trial
Court had allowed the petition and PW22 was very much available for
cross examination on 16.12.2024 and thereafter, on 25.10.2024, the
petitioner had failed to cross examine him and only thereafter, his
evidence was closed. In the meanwhile, PWs.22 to 24 were examined in
chief. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another recall petition in
Crl.M.P.No.1865 of 2024 to recall PWs22 to 24, Investigation Officers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
official respondents further submitted that the petitioner, only to delay
the trial proceedings, had filed the above recall petition. The objections
of the petitioner were considered and only thereafter, trial was
proceeded. The trial Court, while questioning the accused, is not
confined to a particular stage at any point of time. In such
circumstances, the Court had brought the accused on two occasions. The
only apprehension of the petitioner is with regard to objection of marking
Exs.P.22 to 24. It is for the trial Court to decide the admissibility of the
same at the time of rendering judgment. Now, the only grievance is that
the recall petition to recall PWs.22 to 24 is kept pending. The points
raised by the petitioner cannot be considered for transfer of the case and
hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
8. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and
perusing all the materials, this Court finds that the objections made by
the petitioner are to be procedural angle, which the trial Court can decide
at the time of rendering judgment. Now, the grievance of the petitioner
is that Pws.22 to 24, Investigation Officers, are yet to be cross examined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and in this regard, Crl.M.P.No.1865 of 2024 is also pending. The
grievance of the petitioner can be addressed by permitting the petitioner
to recall PWs.22 to 24.
9. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the official respondents on instructions submitted that
PWs22 to 24 will appear before the trial Court on 21.01.2025, ie., on the
next hearing date. On that day, the petitioner may be directed to cross
examined Pws.22 to 24 and complete cross examination without further
delay.
10. In view of the submission made by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents, the petitioner is
directed to cross examine PWs.22 to 24 on 21.01.2025 and complete the
cross examination without any further delay. Thereafter, the trial Court
shall proceed with the trial, following the procedure and dispose of the
case in the manner known to law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. With the above direction, this criminal original petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
NCC : Yes / No 08.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
Sm
Note: Issue order copy on 10.01.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Sm
To:-
1.The Special Court for POSCO Act Cases, Dindigul.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Koombur Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Dated:
08.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
