Dismissed

C.R. Sindhya v. S.Vignesh

Madras HC28 Nov 2023CRL OP/19596/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition challenging an order dismissing an application to summon defense witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Upholding the trial court's view, the High Court held that the petitioner failed to make foundational averments in the reply notice or cross-examination to establish the witnesses' relevance to the case.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to summon additional witnesses was dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition also dismissed.

C.R. Sindhya Vs S.Vignesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P. No.19596 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 28.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P No.19596 of 2023 and Crl.M.P. No.13266 of 2023

C.R.Sindhya

.. Petitioner

Vs.

S.Vigash

..Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Fast Track Court II) at Allikulam (Egmore Unit) Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.23003 of 2023 in S.T.C. No.2643 of 2021 and consequently direct to examine the list of witnesses 2 & 3 mentioned by the petitioner and also to permit the petitioner to examine all the witnesses as a defence witness.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Murugesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Prof.UdayBhanu

¶14

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P. No.19596 of 2023

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner challenging the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the Application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C on the ground that out of three cited witnesses, the petitioner has not explained, how these two witnesses are relevant for the case.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the other two witnesses are relatives to both the complainant and the accused, they are competent to speak about the circumstances under which the subject cheque was issued. For the said purpose, the petitioner/accused ought to have made some foundational averments either in his reply notice or while cross examining the complainant.

¶19

The petitioner has not replied to the statutory notice. On

¶20

perusal of the cross examination of P.W.1, there is a reference about the grand mother who is one of the witness sought to be summoned and about transaction of Rs.3,00,000/-, for vacating premises. The said suggestion been denied by the witnesses. There is no further cross on this point and therefore, the reason stated by the trial Court that apart from the accused, the other two witnesses mentioned in the list of

¶21

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.O.P. No.19596 of 2023

¶23

witnesses for defence are not relevant to the case.

¶24

In view of the above facts, this Court finds no error in the order

¶25

of the trial Court. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶26

28.11.2023

¶27

Internet : Yes/No Index: Yes/No rkp To

¶28

The Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Fast Track Court II) at Allikulam (Egmore Unit) Chennai.

¶29

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.O.P. No.19596 of 2023

¶31

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶32

rkp

¶33

Crl.O.P No.19596 of 2023 and Crl.M.P. No.13266 of 2023

¶34

28.11.2023

¶35

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R. Sindhya v. S.Vignesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R. Sindhya v. S.Vignesh

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/S.Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.Sundaresan Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by

S.Sankari Vs the State Rep.by

T.Bharathi, M/a 55 Yrs, Vs State by the Deputy

S.Senthilkumar Vs N.Sekar

N.Kanagalakshmi Vs R.Indira