ORDER :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order dated 30.03.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.8441 of 2021 in C.C.No.391 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Madurai partly allowed the petition filed under Section 302(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner and set aside the same and allow the above revision so as to engage a private counsel on behalf of petitioner/defacto complainant.)

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 8441 of 2021 in C.C.No.391 of 2018 dated 30.03.2023, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner/defacto complainant, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.571 of 2016 against the second respondent/accused on 06.08.2016 for the offences under Sections 409, 468, 474 and 477A IPC. The first respondent police, after completing the investigation, has laid the final report and the same was taken on file in C.C.No. 391 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai. When the trial was in progress, the above petition under Section 302 Cr.P.C. came to be filed seeking permission to conduct the prosecution by separately engaging a counsel. The first respondent police as well as the second respondent filed their reply raising objections. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 dismissing the petition filed under Section 302 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the defacto complainant has preferred the present revision.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was working as as a Noon Meal Scheme Organizer in Sundarambal Middle School, Keeraithurai, Madurai, in which, the petitioner is working as a Head Master, that the second respondent had sent her application for medical leave for 15 days through post, that the second respondent got inpatient treatment in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai from 13.04.2015, that the second respondent, after attending her duty, had made corrections in the school records, as if, she was working during the medical leave period and got her salary, that when enquiry with respect to the above was pending, she had absented herself for duty without any intimation from 27.11.2015 till 09.12.2015, that subsequently, she had entered into the school premises forcibly and made corrections and subscribed her signature, as if, she was working during the absent period and got her salary, that the first respondent police, in their final report, has not added the concerned BDO and medical officer of the Government Rajaji Hospital, where, the second respondent was taking inpatient treatment, to prove the main charges levelled against her, that when the above aspects were brought to the notice of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he had not taken the same seriously and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the above application seeking permission to examine the concerned BDO and the medical officer attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital and to permit him to conduct the prosecution by engaging a counsel.

4. The defence of the first respondent police is that the prosecution has already examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8, that the prosecution has already filed 3 applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 and to examine the medical officer attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital and to examine the BDO, Madurai East and are pending, that the petitioner has never informed the above aspects to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is now conducting the prosecution, that after examination of 8 witnesses, if permission is granted to the petitioner to conduct the prosecution separately that will cause serious prejudice to the case of the prosecution and that therefore, the above petition