O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.23 of 2005, on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, insofar as it relates to framing of charges and issuance of summons to P.Ws.1 to P.W.5, for cross-examiantion, by the accused and direct the trial Court to proceed with the case from the stage of closure of complainants'

side evidence.

2.Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has instituted a private complaint in C.C.No.23 of 2005, which has been taken on file by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. Thereafter, after examination of the complainant, summons were issued to the accused, who entered appearance and given opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses and on the basis of the examinatiion of witnesses and documents, the case was adjourned to 06.11.2007, for framing of charges.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 28.11.2007, the accused were questioned, they denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the case was posted to 11.01.2008 for cross-examiantion of complainants' side witnesses. Subsequently, the witnesses on the complainant's side were examined and cross-examined by the accused. Thereafter, due to the absence of the complainant on 02.06.2017, the complaint was dismissed, by acquitting the accused. The said order was challenged by the complainants, by filing an appeal before this Court in Crl.A(MD)No.375 of 2017. This Court, by an order dated 20.09.2017 set aside the order, dated 02.06.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and directed the trial Court to proceed with the trial and complete the same within a period of three months.

4. It is further submitted that subsequent to the direction of this Court, further witnesses namely, P.W.6 and P.W.7 have been examined during January 2018 and they have been cross-examined during February, 2018. The learned Judicial Magistrate, without considering the fact that way back in the year 2008, charges were framed and trial had begun, on 13.03.2018, posted the case for framing of charges on 23.03.2018, thereafter on 06.04.2018 and on 07.04.2018. The accused were questioned and they pleaded not guilty and wanted to cross-examine P.W.1 to P.W.5. Accepting the plea of the accused, the trial Court issued summons to P.W.1 to P.W.5 again on 07.04.2018. The procedure adopted by the trial Court is erroneous and also contrary to the earlier proceedings. Moreover, all the seven witnesses have been cross-examined by the accused after framing the charges in the year 2008 itself and there cannot be any cross-examination of alrady cross-examined witnesses, who have been discharged. The accused are simply attempting to drage on the proceedings. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

5. Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not dispute the above factum, which was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. Admittedly, the procedure adopted by the trial Court ie., issuing summons to P.W1 to P.W.5 against on 07.04.2018, for cross- examination is erroneous and also contrary to the earlier proceedings. Moreover, all seven witnesses had already been cross-examined by the accused, after framing of the charges in the year 2008 itself and there cannot be any cross-examination of alrady cross-examined witnesses. Further, perusal of records shows that it is only a mistake committed by the trial Court. Hence, the question of ordering further cross- examiantion of P.W.1 to 5 does not arise, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, I am inclined to s