Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/23897/2026 of Pichaimani Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In on 16 October 2026
CRL OP(MD) No. 23897 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 23897 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011465642026}
Pichaimani
S/o. Andiyappan,
No.8, Ethiraj Street,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Bodi, Theni District.
Crime No. 10 of 2026.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to set aside the order passed by the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act Theni, in Crl.M.P.No. 463 of 2026 in Spl.S.C,No. 100
of 2026 dated 28.09.2026 and recall the P.W.1.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s D.SARANYA
For Respondent(s):
M/S. B. ARUN, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE (CRL. SIDE)
CRL OP(MD) No. 23897 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.100 of 2026 on the file of Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Theni seeking to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.463 of 2026, wherein the request of the petitioner to recall PW1 has been rejected.
2. Perusal of the records reveal that the petitioner is charged with the offence under Sections 351(2), 127(2) of BNS, 9(m), 11(3) and 12 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
3. PW1 / victim was chief examined on 31.08.2026, but she was not cross examined on the same date. The present application has been filed within a week’s time seeking to recall PW1 for the purpose of cross examination.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, since his previous counsel has not conducted the cross examination, he has engaged a new counsel, and only thereafter, it was found that PW1 has not been cross examined. She further submits that there is no inordinate delay in filing the petition to recall PW1 for the purpose of cross examination.
CRL OP(MD) No. 23897 of 2026
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
6. As could be seen from the records, PW1 was not cross examined, even though Section 33(5) of POCSO Act points out that the victim should not be called upon before the Court to testify again and again.
7. This Court in Crl.OP(MD) No.22696 of 2022, dated 04.01.2023 between Murugan Vs Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nilakottai, Dindigul District, paragraph No.13 it is held as follows: “13. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case on hand, the above petition was not filed for the purpose of further cross examination, but for cross examination itself. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall the victim girl and other witnesses were filed belatedly or frivolously. Though the petitioner is at fault, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the witnesses sought to be recalled were not at all cross examined and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is facing trial for the serious offences, this Court is of the clear view that the petitioner should be given one more opportunity to cross
CRL OP(MD) No. 23897 of 2026 examine the witnesses. But at the same time, considering the length of delay and the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is of the further view that the petitioner must be mulcted with costs and with further condition that the petitioner/accused, should cross examine the witnesses on the day, when the witnesses are produced before the Court and if for any reason, the petitioner fails to cross examine the said witnesses on that particular day, then he will forfeit his right to cross examine them”
8. In the present case, PW1 has not been cross examined at all. Considering the seriousness of offence levelled against the petitioner and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that one more opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to recall PW1. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to pass the following order :
a) The impugned order in Crl.M.P. No. 463 of 2026 in Spl.S.C. No.100 of 2026, dated 28.09.2026 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Theni is set aside and the petitioner shall be permitted to recall and cross examine PW1;
b) the petitioner shall pay batta within a period of three days from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
CRL OP(MD) No. 23897 of 2026
c) the petitioner is directed to cross examine PW1 on the date on which she appears;
d) no further adjournment shall seek for by the petitioner to cross examine PW1.
9. In the above terms, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PNM To
1. The Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act Theni
2. The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Bodi, Theni District. Crime No. 10 of 2026.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
CRL OP(MD) No. 23897 of 2026 R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. PNM CRL OP(MD) No. 23897 of 2026 16-10-2026