Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12775 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 21.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12775 of 2022

and

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8090 and 8091 of 2022

C.Jegadeesan

... Petitioner

Vs

C.Velraj

... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated

22.01.2021 passed in Cr.M.P.No. 4451 of 2021 in C.C.No.155 of 2012 on the

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti and to set aside the

same in the nature and circumstance of the case.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Rajamohan

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12775 of 2022

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to set aside the impugned

order dated 22.01.2021 passed in Cr.M.P.No. 4451 of 2021 in C.C.No.155 of

2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

an accused in C.C.No.155 of 2012. A complaint has been preferred by the

respondent against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act which is taken cognizance in C.C.No.155 of 2012

by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti. The said case is now

pending trial for defense side further evidence. On the defense side, three

witnesses have been examined and the petitioner filed an application to

examine one Kumarasamy as a Court witness to establish the fact that the said

Kumarasamy have filed a complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.115 of

2012 for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, though the

case was ended in acquittal on 08.11.2018. In this regard, during the cross

examination, the complainant admitted the fact about the filing of cases by

Kumarasamy. Therefore, filed application to examine the said Kumarasay as

2/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12775 of 2022

a Court witness. The Trial Court dismissed the petition by impugned order.

Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to examine the witness

Kumarasamy as a Court witness to establish the above said fact for filing of

case against the accused which was ended in acquittal.

3. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

4. Perusal of the records reveals the fact that the respondent filed a

private complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act which was taken on file in C.C.No.155 of 2012.

After examination of witnesses, the case was posted for defense side

evidences. The accused examined three witnesses. The petitioner wants to

examine one Kumarasamy as a Court witness in order to establish the fact

about the filing of cases by the said Kumarasamy against the petitioner in

C.C.No.115 of 2012 which was ended in acquittal. It was also admitted by

the complainant during his cross examination. The petitioner accused has

right to examine any witness on his side as a defense witness but he cannot

insist the Court to examine any witness as a Court witness unless the Court

3/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12775 of 2022

wants to examine particular witness for adjudicating the issue before it is

needed, but no party has power to insist the Court to examine the witness as a

Court witness. Therefore, I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned

order passed by the Trial Court and no merit in the application and hence

dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the Trial Court to

examine further defense side witness on his side.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

21.07.2022

Internet:Yes

Index:Yes/No

Nsr

To

The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madura