O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to set aside impugned order, dated 27/10/2023 passed in Crl.M.P No.572 of 2023 in CC No.115 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila) Court,

Madurai.

2.Heard both sides.

3.This petitioner is facing the charge under section

4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 @ section 354A r/w section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. After completion of the examination of the prosecution was over, the case was posted for further proceedings namely questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C. At that time, the prosecution taken out a petition under section 242(2) r/w 311 of Cr.P.C to examine one Pargunanathan, who was working as Travelling Ticket Examiner regarding the allotment of seat to this petitioner and relevant documents. That came to be allowed by the trial court stating that the examination of that person and production of the documents are required for just decision of the case. This is the sub and substance of the issue.

4.The grievance of the petitioner is that during the course of cross examination of the Investigating Officer namely PW8, a specific question was put to him regarding this point.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon this portion of the cross examination, which would run this.

“vjphp Kd;gjptpy;yhj of;bfl;il thq;fp gazk; bra;::Js;shh; vd;W vdJ Kjy; tprhuizapy; brhy;ypa[s;s epiyapy;> ehd; Kd;gjptpy;yhj of;bfl;il ifg;gw;wpnddh vd;why; ,y;iy. uapypy; gazk; bra;ak[ ; gazpfspd; bgah; gl;oay; bfhz;l ml;ltizia ehd; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. m.rh.2 vGj;J K:ykhf bfhLj;j g[fhhpid kiwj;J m.rh.1 bfhLj;j bgha;ahd gf[ hhpd; mog;gilapy; ,e;j tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd; vd;why; rhpay;y. ehd; ahiua[k; rhpahf tprhuiz bra;atpy;iy vd;whYk; ehd; brhd;dJnghy; ve;j rk;gtKk; eilbgwtpy;iy vd;whYk;> ,e;j tHf;F rk;gtnk vdf;F bjhpahJ vd;whYk; rhpay;y. vdJ brhe;j Ch; fk;gk;. ehd; fpwpj;jt kj;jij rhh;e;jth;. m.rh.2> m.rh.7 fpwpj;jt kj;jij rhh;e;jth;fs; vd;gjhy; mth;fSf;F Mjuthf bgha;ahf ,e;j tHf;fpid jhf;fy;

bra;Js;nsd; vd;why; rhpay;y.”

6.By relying upon this, he would submit that it is the categorical admission on the part of the Investigating Officer that he did not seize or record the Reservation Chart, Tickets, etc., facts. So according to him, to fill up a lacuna only, Travelling Ticket Examiner is going to be examined by the prosecution. If he is not examined, his defence will be seriously prejudiced.

7.Further, it is submitted that without taking up the further investigation, the documents sought to be produced cannot be permitted. He would rely upon the following judgment on that point.

(1)State represented by Additional

Superintendent of Police, CB CID, Metro Wing, Chennai-2 Vs. Tmt.Indirakumari and others (2003(3)CTC 291);

(2)Martin Manrique Mansour Vs. State

Rep. by The Inspector of Police (2016

LW(Cri)637);

(3)Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs.

Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others

[(2017)4 SCC 177);

(4)Gayes Vs. State rep. by its,

Inspector of Police, Kulasekaranpattinam Police Station, Thoothukudi District

[(2018-2-L.W.(Crl.) 721);

5.An unreported order made in

Crl.OP(MD)No.15182 of 2018, dated 29/08/2018 (State represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai Vs.

K.P.Kumar @ K.P.Veera Kumar and 7 others);

6.Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation [(2019)14 SCC

328); and

7.Unreported judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Varsha Garg Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Criminal

Appeal No.1021 of 2022, dated 08/08/2022).

8.By relying upon the above judgments, he would contend that this position has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that unless there is further investigation on the side of the prosecution, further witnesses and documents cannot be permitted.

9.But perusal of the record of proceedings shows that on many of the hearings, this petitioner remained absent. On his behalf repeated petitions were filed under section 317 Cr.P.C. Crl.MP No.572 of