IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.21513 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.13969 of 2022 Perumal ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. Prabu

3. Sathiya

4. Hanestraj

5. Saranraj

6. Bathiri Narayanan

7. Muhamudali ... Respondents Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records made in Crl.M.P.No.174 of 2021 dated 06.08.2022 in S.C.No.83 of 2019 on the file of Mahila Fast Track Court, Thiruvannamalai and Set aside the same to secure the ends of justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records made in Crl.M.P.No.174 of 2021 dated 06.08.2022 in S.C.No.83 of 2019 on the file of Mahila Fast Track Court, Thiruvannamalai and to set aside the same, thereby dismissed the petition filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The wife of the petitioner was brutally murdered by her own daughter-in-law. In fact, the accused persons were found by the Investigating Officer only on seeing the CCTV footages. Now, the Investigating Officer failed to produce the said CCTV footages before the Trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C to produce the CCTV footages. 3. A perusal of the counter filed by the first respondent revealed that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested A1 to A6 and recorded their confession statement in the presence of witnesses as well as seized the case related properties under cover of seizure mahazar. Later, they produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai and remanded the accused persons to judicial custody. As per the seizure mahazar, there is no CCTV footages in this case. That apart, the accused persons were arrested by other evidences and not by CCTV footages. Now, the Trial is going on and P.W.2/petitioner herein is in the bars. Further, there is no evidence to prove the case of the prosecution is as against the accused persons. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by producing the CCTV footages. That apart, there is no CCTV footages and there is no record.

4. In view of the above, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the CCTV footages are available, the same may be considered by the Trial Court.

5. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the CCTV footages are available, it may be produced before the Trial Court for consideration.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.09.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mn To

1. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn and Crl.M.P.No.13969 of 2022

20.09.2022