Disposed

L.Madeswaran, M/a 48 Years, v. C.a.Yuvaraaj

Madras HC5 Apr 2019CRL OP/7141/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Cr.O.P. filed under Sec. 482 CrPC challenging an order allowing recall of a prosecution witness. The High Court permitted the accused to cross-examine the witness regarding the additional testimony, directing completion within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 on further examination within one week; case to be disposed within two weeks.

L.Madeswaran, M/a 48 Years, Vs C.a.Yuvaraaj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7141 of 2018 &

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.3691 of 2018

¶7

L.Madeswaran ... Petitioner/Respondent/Accused Vs. C.A.Yuvaraaj ... Respondent/Petitioner/ Complainant

¶8

Prayer : Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.02.2018 made in C.M.P.No.715 of 2018 in S.T.C.No.412 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court No.-I, Erode.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanam

¶11

This petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 12.02.2018 passed in C.M.P.No.715 of 2018 in S.T.C.No.412 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.-I, Erode, thereby allowing the petition filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further examination.

¶12

It is seen that the respondent lodged complaint as against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.412 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. When the case was posted for defence witnesses, the respondent/complainant filed a petition in C.M.P.No.715 of 2018 to recall P.W.1 for further examination. The trial Court by an order dated 12.02.2018 allowed the said petition as against which the petitioner/accused filed this present petition.

¶13

It is also seen that since there is no interim order passed by this Court, the trial Court is proceeded with trial and matter has been posted for arguments today. During the trial, the petitioner also examined his witnesses as defence

¶14

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

¶15

witnesses. But he did not cross examine P.W.1 on his further examination. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to cross examine P.W.1 on his further examination alone in the next hearing date. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to cross examine P.W.1, in respect of further examination, within a period of one week from today and dispose of the case within a period of two weeks thereafter. If the petitioner fails to cross examine on the date fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

¶16

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nl
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Fast Track Court No-I, Erode.
2.-Do-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Erode.
+1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate Sr.33541
+1cc to Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, Advocate Sr.33292

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.7141 of 2018

¶19

srg 08/04/2019

¶20

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

L.Madeswaran, M/a 48 Years, v. C.a.Yuvaraaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Madeswaran, M/a 48 Years, v. C.a.Yuvaraaj

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

Krishna Kumar Vs Victoria Shanmuga Priya

R.M.Senthil Kumar Vs Hemalatha

M/S. Sree Vari Corporation Rep Vs S. Chockalingam

C.Balasubramanian, Vs The District Collector

M.Kannan Vs The District Collector

L.Madeswaran, Aged 48 Years, Vs Raajhammal, Aged 42 Years