Allowed

K.Ziaullah, M/A.45 Years v. K.Shajahan

Madras HC23 Sept 2019CRL OP/3676/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's request to cross-examine prosecution witness P.W.1. Directed the trial court to permit cross-examination on 25.09.2019, emphasizing that the petitioner must complete it on that day without further indulgence.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.09.2017 set aside. Petitioner permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 on 25.09.2019, to be completed on that day.

K.Ziaullah, M/A.45 Years Vs K.Shajahan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.3676 of 2018 and

¶6

Crl.M.P. No.1662 of 2018 K.Ziaullah ...Petitioner

¶7

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.7834 of 2017 in C.C.No.3079 of 2016, dated 21.09.2017.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.K.Kannan

¶10

The rejection of the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is put to challenge in the present criminal original petition.

¶11

2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, having not cross-examined P.W.1 at any point of time, in order to establish certain facts in respect of part payments, the cross-examination of P.W.1 is crucial.

¶12

3.The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would strongly object to such an observation stating that various opportunities were given to the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1 and when the matter is now posted for arguments, it would not be appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioner. The Court below has also recorded such an objection, which is now relied by the learned counsel for the respondent, that many adjournments were given to the petitioner for cross-examining P.W.1 and when the case was posted for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the present application had been filed.

¶13

4.I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Court below. It is a settled proposition that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judicially and the

¶14

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

¶15

accused should not be allowed to misuse such a discretion in order to prolong the proceedings. Nevertheless, this Court has taken note of the fact that, in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., when the petitioner claims that he had made some part payments, which he has failed to establish by way of crossexamination, this Court is of the view that if one opportunity is given and the petitioner is directed to complete the crossexamination of P.W.1 on the same day, not only the ends of justice could be secured, but it would also assist the trial Court to come to a fair and just conclusion.

¶16

5.In the light of the above observations, the order dated 21.09.2017, passed in Crl.M.P.No.7834 of 2017 in C.C.No.3079 of 2016 is set aside. Consequently, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai, shall permit the petitioner herein to cross-examine the P.W.1 on 25.09.2019. It is made clear that the petitioner herein shall complete the cross-examination of P.W.1 on the same day and no further indulgence should be extended to the petitioner herein for the purpose of further cross-examination.

¶17

6.With the above observations, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. mkn Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai.

¶18

+1cc to Mr.K.Kannan, Advocate, SR.No.81786 +1cc to Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.No.81636

¶19

Crl.O.P. No.3676 of 2018 and Crl.M.P. No.1662 of 2018

¶20

Kak(24/09/2019)

¶21

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

K.Ziaullah, M/A.45 Years v. K.Shajahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ziaullah, M/A.45 Years v. K.Shajahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Ashokan, Aged 48 Years Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

R.Sekar, Aged 60 Years, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras Club Vs Ther State of Tamilnadu

The Kunnathur Primary Agricultural Vs the Joint Registrar Co-Operative

Peter, M/a 29 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Peter, M/a 29 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police