Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Siva vs the State Rep by Its,

SIVA vs The State Rep by Its,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Feb 27, 2025
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1807757

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL OP/5529/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SIVA

Respondent

The State Rep by Its,

Excerpt

.....no.119 of 2017 on the file of hon'ble for petitioner : mr.k.prabhakaran for respondent : mr.k.m.d.muhilan government advocate (crl.side)orderthis petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 24.12.2024 passed in crl.m.p.no.2152 of 2024 in sc no.119 of 2017 on the file of the mahila court, salem, thereby dismissing the petition file under section 311 of cr.p.c, to recall pws.1 to 11.2. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.3. the petitioner is an accused and facing charges for the offencesunder sections 294(b), 341, 302 of ipc and section 4 of tamil nadu prohibition of harassment of women act, in sc.no.119 of 2017, on the file of the mahila court, salem.4. a perusal of records revealed that pws.1 to 8 were examined tillthe year 2020. pws.9 to 11 were examined in the year 2024. however, the petitioner failed to cross examine any of the prosecution witnesses and dragged the trial for the past eight years. after a period of eight years, the petitioner had chosen to file an application under section 311 of cr.p.c to recall all the prosecution witnesses. now, the prosecution is yet to examine the doctor and the investigation officer.5. in view of the above, the trial court had rightly dismissed the petition and this court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 24.12.2024 in crl.m.p.no.2152 of 2024 in sc no.119 of 2017 passed by the6. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. internet:yes index:yes/nospeaking/non speaking ordermn to1. the mahila court, salem.2. the inspector of police, salem.3. the public prosecutor, high court, madras. g.k.ilanthiraiyan. j, mn

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.No.3580 of 2025 Siva ... Petitioner Vs The State represented by its, The Inspector of Police, Salem. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated 24.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2152 of 2024 in SC No.119 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakaran For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 24.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2152 of 2024 in SC No.119 of 2017 on the file of the Mahila Court, Salem, thereby dismissing the petition file under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, to recall PWs.1 to 11.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner is an accused and facing charges for the offences

under Sections 294(b), 341, 302 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in SC.No.119 of 2017, on the file of the Mahila Court, Salem.

4. A perusal of records revealed that PWs.1 to 8 were examined till

the year 2020. PWs.9 to 11 were examined in the year 2024. However, the petitioner failed to cross examine any of the prosecution witnesses and dragged the trial for the past eight years. After a period of eight years, the petitioner had chosen to file an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall all the prosecution witnesses. Now, the prosecution is yet to examine the Doctor and the Investigation Officer.

5. In view of the above, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 24.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2152 of 2024 in SC No.119 of 2017 passed by the

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non speaking order

mn To

1. The Mahila Court, Salem.

2. The Inspector of Police, Salem.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2025 Same Parties SIVA vs The State Rep by Its, Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales