IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.No.1164 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12937 of 2022 N.Syamasundara Naidu ... Petitioner Vs.

1. V.Dakshinamoorthy

2. B.H.Himagiribabu

3. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, D.C.B (ALGSC) Vellore. ... Respondents Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.4962 of 2022 in C.C.No.10 of

2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijaya Raghaven For R3 : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.4962 of 2022 in C.C.No.10 of 2016.

2. The petitioner/defacto complainant lodged a compliant against the respondents 1 and 2 before the respondent police, who registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2014 for the offence under sections 120(B), 419, 420, 423, 447, 465, 468, 471, 506(2) IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act. After investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore and the learned Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.10 of 2016. Since the petitioner is not satisfied with the conduct of the trial by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and also not satisfied with the third respondent police in a way in which they are conducting the case, during trial, he filed a petition under section 302 Cr.P.C., for engaging a private counsel to conduct prosecution. The petitioner has clearly stated that the original forged document has not been marked and the prosecution purposefully withheld the document. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that neither the Assistant Public Prosecutor is conducting the case properly nor the investigating officer is properly guiding the Assistant Public Prosecutor to conduct the case. When the petitioner filed the petition under section 302 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the reasons stated in the affidavit and simply dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this Revision Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner waiting for the fag end of the trial believing that the prosecution would conduct the case in a fair manner, in which he would get real justice, however, by the activities of the investigating officer and the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he lost his hope, since because, even they have not marked the material document which is very much available and also they failed to mark the report of the forensic expert. Hence, he has apprehension that he would not get real justice from them, if the trial is continued in this way.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported 2001 (3) SCC 462 [ J.K.Inter National Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi and others] and the order of this Court dated 04.09.2008 passed in Crl.O.P.No.17617 of

2008 [ Dr.Anu Gayathri Vs. Dr.K.Karthikeyan and others]

5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the official respondent would submit that trial already commenced and almost all the witnesses have been examined. P.Ws.1 and 2 were also examined in chief, but they have not appeared before the Court for cross examination on the side of the defence. Therefore, in order to get over the same, he has filed the petition under Section 302 Cr.P.C. and the trial court rightly dismissed the same.

6. Heard Mr.R.Vijaya Raghaven, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondent and perused the records.

7. Normally, if any complaint is lodged before the respondent police, the respondent police would take the cognizance of the case and register F.I.R and t