The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed by accused persons challenging the dismissal of Section 311 Cr.P.C. application due to excessive delay. The Court held there was no infirmity in the lower court order.
Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2018 dismissed; order dated 20.03.2018 cannot be quashed as it was erroneous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2018
1) Mani 2) Mani @ Manikumar ... Petitioners Vs
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mathigiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: C riminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 20.03.2018 made in Crl.M.P.No.556 of 2018 in C.C.No.22 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Hosur.
For Petitioners : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/4
Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Original petition has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.556 of 2018 in C.C.No.22 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Hosur, thereby dismissed the application filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C.
2. These petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.22 of 2010. The respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court in C.C.No.22 of 2010 for the offence under section 457, 360 of IPC. After commencement of Trial, the prosecution had examined its witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.5 on 04.6.2010. Thereafter, P.W.7 was examined on 27.02.2016 and P.W.8 and 9 was examined on 09.03.2016. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner was very much appeared before the Trial Court, he failed to Cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the prosecution had examined other witnesses, when the Trial Court posted the case for Defence side witness, the petitioners filed an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C to reopen the case of the prosecution for the cross-examination of prosecution
2/4
Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2018
witnesses. It was filed after eight years from the date of Chief Examination.
3. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the said application
filed under section.311 of Cr.P.C. This court finds no infirmity or
illegality of the order passed by the Trial Court.
16.11.2023
Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order gvn
To
3/4
Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
gvn
Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2018
16.11.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the dismissal of a bail application can be maintained.
Whether the dismissal of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. due to undelays is erroneous or arbitrary.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Mani
Mani @ Manikumar
State
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
