Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Banumathi vs A.Muthammal ... 1St

Madras High Court|09 November, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 18.11.2016 passed in Cr.M.P.No.51 of 2016 in C.C.No.1 of 2013 by the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai and also for a direction to array the 2nd respondent as 2nd accused in C.C.No.1 of 2013.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for R1 & R2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for R3 are present. Today additional typed set of papers was filed by R1 & R2. Heard both sides.
3.The case is registered against R1 & R2 based on the complaint given by the petitioner and final report was also filed against R1 alone, deleting the name of R2. While the case was taken up for examination of witness, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and also cross-examined by the 1st respondent herein. On the basis of evidence adduced by P.W.1, the third respondent filed an impugned petition in Cr.M.P.No.51 of 2016 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., to implead the 2nd respondent as an accused / A2 and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court, only on the ground of delay in filing by the petition. The evidence of P.W.1 is not yet considered in respect of relief sought for in that petition.
4.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, in that case, he has admitted the fact that that R1 & R2 are said to have attacked the de facto complainant during the occurrence.
5.The learned counsel for R1 & R2 submitted that the petitioner has not stated about the 2nd respondent at the time of admission before the Doctor for treatment.
6.However, the evidence of P.W.1 reveals the fact that R2 also involved in the occurrence and the Trial Court has not discussed about the evidence of P.W.1 in this case.
7.Considering the above facts and circumstances and also considering the fact of involvement of R2 in the alleged occurrence, on the basis of evidence of P.W.1, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.51 of 2016 in C.C.No.1 of 2013. Hence, this petition is allowed, directing the learned Principal District Court, Pudukkottai to implead the 2nd respondent in C.C.No.1 of 2013 and proceed the case in accordance with law.
8.The Trail Court is further directed to complete the trial of the case and dispose the same, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report the same to the Registry. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Principal District Court, Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Avudaiyarkoil Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Banumathi vs A.Muthammal ... 1St

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
09 November, 2017