BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and Crl.M.P(MD)No.2155 of 2026 Anbuthamizhan ... Petitioner/A1 Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Pudukottai District.

(Crime No.115/2021) ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the order dated 01.11.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.2874 of 2025 in S.C.No.25 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.William Christopher For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai in Crl.M.P.No.2874 of 2025 in S.C.No.25 of 2022 dated 01.11.2025, this criminal original petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was the 1^st accused before the learned trial Court in S.C.No.25 of 2022. He had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall the case for the purpose of further cross examination of P.W.12. However, the same came to be rejected by the learned trial Court. He further submitted that instead of seeking further cross examination of P.W.7, by means of typographic error, he had mentioned as P.W.12. Total number of L.Ws in the aforesaid case itself were seven. Under such circumstances, without considering the fact that instead of P.W.7, by typographical error it has mentioned as P.W.12, the trial Court had dismissed the said application.

3. The specific ground which was taken by the petitioner before the learned trial Court is that the learned Judge had not allowed the petitioner to contradict the witness in the manner known to law as per Section 145 of Evidence Act and and sought the indulgence of this Court.

4. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out the analysis and reasoning of the learned trial Court in Paragraph No.5 (v) and (vi) of the impugned order and categorically contended that the learned trial Court has properly discussed, analyzed and thereafter, rejected the petitioner's claim after recording the fact that P.W.7 who is none other than the Investigating Officer had been subjected to elaborate cross examination running to pages by putting all necessary questions relevant for the purpose of contradicting the prime witness, who is the Investigating Officer and under such circumstances, there is no infirmity and sought to dismiss the case.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in his application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C before the learned trial Court seeking further further cross examination, he had clearly pleaded the necessity for further cross examination of P.W.7, wherein it was contended that during cross examination of P.W.7, when the defence counsel had raised questions to contradict P.W.7 by citing the depositions of prosecution witnesses in their chief with their earlier statements given under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C, P.W.7 answered in negative as against the original statements given by those witnesses, even without verifying the case diary. Immediately, when the defence counsel attempted to draw the attention of the witness by showing the statements under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C of the witnesses as contemplated under Section 145 (2) of the Evidence Act, the learned trial court sternly denied the opportunity for further cross examining P.W.7 by citing the lengthy and multiple statements under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C of the witnesses. Though the defence counsel raised serious objection in this regard, the learned trial Court compelling the defence counsel to raise such points during arguments, closed the cross examination of PW7. Hence, left with no other option, the petitio