The Petitioner's request to recall and cross examination of PW9 and PW10 under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not stated any reason for further cross examination of PW9 and PW10 and did not exercise the option of cross examination when the PW9 and PW10 was present. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.
2. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases condemned the practices of vexatious applications filed under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C to protract the proceedings.
3. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given an opportunity for cross examining the prosecution witness PW9 and PW10 to prove that the allegation of the respondent in the complaint is false.
4. In view of the submissions made by the petitioners, by giving another opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witness PW9 and PW10, by fixing the time frame for completing the cross examination will not cause prejudice to the prosecution and by fixing such time frame, the proceedings may not get unjustifiably prolonged.
5. Hence the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.13950 of 2017 in S.C.No.422 of 2012, dated 22.09.2016 by the learned Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Chennai is set aside. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Chennai, is directed to permit the petitioners to recall and cross examine PW9 and PW10 on 14.11.2017. It is made clear that the petitioners shall complete the cross examination on the same day.
6. With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.