Dismissed

Viswanathan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC3 Aug 2023CRL OP/17452/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a Criminal Original Petition filed to challenge an order imposing witness costs. The Court held that filing a second quash petition for the same cause of action, after withdrawing the first before them, constitutes an abuse of process and bench hopping.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition challenging the order imposing witness costs stands dismissed as an abuse of process of Court.

Viswanathan Vs State Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.17452 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.17452 of 2023

¶7

1.Viswanathan S/o.Murugaiyan

¶8

2.Dinakaran S/o.Nallaiyan .. Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

STATE : Represented By, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvarur District. (Cr.No.2 of 2000) .. Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside and modify the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.6857 of 2022 by Judicial Magistrate – I, Mannargudi, directing them to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousands only) to each of the witnesses P.Ws. 2, 3 and 8 in C.C.No.109 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.Swamisubramanian For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor *****

¶13

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

¶14

1/6

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.17452 of 2023

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order

¶18

passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.6857 of 2022 allowing the application filed for recalling certain witnesses for cross-examination by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to each witness.

¶19

Heard Mr.Swamisubramanian, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.

¶20

It is seen from records that the petitioners had filed Crl.M.P.No.6856 of 2022 to recall PWs.2, 3, 5, 6 and 14 in C.C.No.108 of 2004 and this petition was allowed by the Court below by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to each witness. The same was put to challenge before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31244 of 2022 and this Court, by order dated 19.12.2022, reduced the cost payable from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.2,500/- for each witness.

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.17452 of 2023

¶24

The petitioners filed yet another petition in Crl.M.P.No.6857 of 2022 to recall PWs.2, 3 and 8 in C.C.No.109 of 2004. This petition was also allowed by the Court below by directing the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to each witness. This order was put to challenge before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31492 of 2022. This petition was withdrawn by learned counsel for petitioners and recording the same, the said Criminal Original Petition was also dismissed on 20.12.2022.

¶25

This Criminal Original Petition has again been filed challenging

¶26

the very same order passed in Crl.M.P.No.6857 of 2022. In the considered view of this Court, the present petition by itself amounts to an abuse of process of Court. It is true that the Apex Court in Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi and another) [ (2019) 3 MWN (Crl.) DCC 97 (SC) ] has held that a second quash petition can be maintained before the Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C. However, while passing such an order, the Apex Court never intended to encourage Bench hopping. If filing of a second quash petition on the same cause of action is permitted without any control, a counsel can always withdraw the first quash petition before an inconvenient Bench and later, move yet another quash petition before a

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.17452 of 2023

¶30

Judge, who is more relief oriented. If this is allowed, there will no end in filing quash petitions before the Court and it will clearly result in abuse of process of Court. This can never be entertained by this Court and entertaining a second quash petition will be done only in exceptional cases where it is warranted.

¶31

The instant case is a classic example of how a second quash petition is filed before a different Bench when the earlier quash petition for the very same cause of action was withdrawn on an earlier occasion. This Court does not find any merits to entertain this second quash petition. It was also brought to the notice of this Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the final arguments are over and the matter is posted for passing judgment.

¶32

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶33

03.08.2023

¶34

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral citation:Yes/No gm

¶35

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

¶36

4/6

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.17452 of 2023

¶38

¶39

1.The Judicial Magistrate I, Mannargudi.

¶40

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvarur District.

¶41

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Madras.

¶42

5/6

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.17452 of 2023

¶45

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

¶46

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.17452 of 2023

¶48

03.08.2023

¶49

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

¶50

6/6

Viswanathan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswanathan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Crescent Therapeutics Limited Vs Union of India

K.Narendhiran Vs The District Collector

Chinnasamy Vs The District Collector

T.Ponnambalam Vs State by

S.Soundarrajan Vs the State Rep.by Its

A.K.S.Hansraj Vs State Rep by