The prosecution of criminal cases must be conducted through the Public Prosecutor to maintain neutrality; however, trial courts should not dismiss applications to produce additional evidence merely due to technical defects in the cause title, but rather examine the admissibility and relevance of the evidence on its merits.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated

06.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2025 in C.C. No. 26 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. A. Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Mohamed Rafi for Mr. M.I. Javid Akbar for R1 to R3 Mr. A. Amarnath, Government Advocate for R4

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated

06.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2025 in C.C. No. 26 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant, on whose complaint a case in Crime No. 8 of 2023 was registered against respondents 1 to 3 on 12.06.2023 for offences under Sections 498(A) and 120B of the IPC. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.26 of 2024 against the respondents 1 to 3, listing 10 witnesses and relevant documents.

3. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that she had also filed a petition seeking permission to assist the prosecution and participate in the conduct of the trial before the trial Court. During the trial, it was noticed that six documents, namely, a copy of the AMI Montessori Diploma certificate, a copy of the marriage photo, a copy of the receipt for the marriage hall, a copy of the tax invoice issued by Days Hotel, a copy of the list of Sridhana gold and silver articles and a copy of the petitioner’s bank statement for July 2022, had not been annexed to the charge sheet. Hence, a petition was filed, which was signed by the Additional Public Prosecutor on 11.09.2025. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed in Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2025 on 06.11.2025.

The impugned order reads as follows:

“On perusal of case records this petition filed by defacto complainant is not maintainable. Here the prosecution is conducting this case as complainant. Hence this petition is dismissed.”

3.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order was passed due to a misreading of the petition and a failure on the part of the trial Court to consider its contents in their entirety. Though, at first glance, the petition appears to have been filed by the defacto complainant, it was in fact signed by the concerned Additional Public Prosecutor on 11.09.2025. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the documents produced along with the petition are liable to be taken on record in C.C.No.26 of 2024.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that in this case, they had filed a vacate stay petition along with an affidavit of the 1^st respondent, stating that the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands and had filed a frivolous petition in Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2025 before the trial Court.

4.1. It was further submitted that the case is now pending trial and that the chief-examination of PW1 is partly completed. The petitioner commenced her chief-examination on 12.06.2025, during which Exs. P1 to P5 were marked. While the chief-examination of PW1 was pending, on 11.09.2025, the petitioner, through her counsel, filed a petition under Section 348 of the BNSS.

4.2. The learned counsel further contended that the short cause title clearly indicates that the petition was filed by the defacto complainant and not by the 4^th respondent. He further pointed out that the docket of the petition it is typed as “counsel for the petitioner / defacto complainant, S. Natarajan.” 4.3. It was further submitted that when the trial was at the stage of continuation of the chief-examination of PW1, an attempt to fill up lacuna by introducing