Dismissed

Lathipulla v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC16 Jul 2015CRL OP/14487/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to set aside an order dismissing a compromise petition for recall of witnesses in an IPC matrimonial trial. The High Court held that since cross-examination was eventually conducted and no legal error existed, the petition failed and the trial must proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; trial court directed to complete trial within two months; connected M.P. closed.

Lathipulla Vs the State Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.14487 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

1.Lathipulla 2.Pechiammal .. Petitioners Vs. The State Represented by Inspector of Police North Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.9071 of 2010 .. Respondent

¶7

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 12.05.2015 made in C.M.P.No.67 of 2015 in S.C.No.86 of 2013 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

¶8

For Petitioners :Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent :Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 12.05.2015 made in C.M.P.No.67 of 2015 in S.C.No.86 of 2013 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶11

On 16.06.2014, this court passed the following orders.

¶12

"The petitioners herein are facing trial in S.C.No.86 of 2013 for the offences under Section 498(A), 498(A) r/w 109 and 306 of IPC., before the learned Mahila Court, Tiruppur. The prosecution

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

examined PW2 and PW3, who were also cross-examined by the accused.

¶15

When the matter was posted for the examination of investigating officer, the accused filed CMP.67 of 2015, to recall PW2 and PW3 for the purpose of further cross-examination, on the ground that they have failed to put certain suggestions. The Trial Court has dismissed the CMP.No.67 of 2015 on 12.05.2015, on the ground that the accused are trying to protract the proceedings.

¶16

On a reading of the impugned order, it is seen that PW2 is a heart patient and he is hailing from Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District. PW-3, is the wife of PW-2. Under such circumstances, the prayer for recalling PW2 is rejected and the order of the Trial Court is up-held. Since the accused are facing grave charges, it will serve the interest of justice, if the accused are permitted to crossexamine PW-3, on condition that they pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost to the witness, before she gets into the witness box. PW-3 shall be cross-examined by the counsel for petitioner on 24.06.2015, the date on which the trial is posted. On failure of the petitioners to cross-examine, the right will stand automatically forfeited. Since this Court is monitoring this case, adjourn to 26.06.2015 for orders.

¶17

Thereafter, the time for cross-examination of PW3 was extended and now, it is reported by both sides that PW3 was cross examined by the defence on 10.07.2015 and the cost of Rs.2,000/- has also been paid to PW3.

¶18

In view of the above, nothing survives in this petition and the same is closed. The trial Court is directed to expeditiously proceed with the trial and complete the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

sms

¶20

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶21

True Copy

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

¶25

Inspector of Police North Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.9071 of 2010

¶26

The Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

¶27

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶28

- 1 cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate SR 36384

¶29

vsn(co)
prk7/8
Crl.O.P.No.14487 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Lathipulla v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lathipulla v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthu Raman Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Pooventhan Vs P.Sivasankari

M.Sagayam Vs P.Saravanan

M.Vasantha Vs State Rep. by

Rajesh Vs the State Rep. by

P.S.Pushpalatha Vs G.Gangatharan