CRL OP No. 16838 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 16838 of 2026 and Crl.MP.No.11167 of 2026 Lakshmanan, S/o Venkatraman, Thenkarumbalur Village, Thandrampattu Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. ..Petitioner / Petitioner / Accused Vs State represented by Inspector of Police Vanapuram Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.147 of 2022 ..Respondent/ Respondent/ Complainant Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 04.03.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.1171 of 2025 in Spl.SC.No.44 of 2023 passed by the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai District. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Thirumalaivasan For Respondent(s): Mr.r.Rajasekaran, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16838 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 ORDER The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 04.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1171 of 2025 in Special S.C.No.44 of 2023, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner to recall PW1 for the purpose of cross-examination was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. A perusal of the records reveals that there are three accused in the case and none of them had cross-examined the victim child. Earlier, the other two accused, namely Sukumar and Baskaran, had filed Crl.O.P.Nos.10788 & 10793 of 2026. This Court, after considering the issue in detail, passed the following order. It is necessary to extract paragraphs 2 to 5 of the said order. “2.The petitioners, arrayed as A1 and A3, are facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.44 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 450, 376 (2) (n), 366 and 506 (1) of I.P.C, and Sections 5 (l), 6(1), 5 (j) (ii) of POCSO Act, 2012. In this case, P.W.1 was examined on 22.08.2025. Although, the First Information Report was registered on 04.07.2022 and the charge sheet was filed on 21.03.2023, the case was only taken on file on 11.06.2025 and remained pending at the stage of framing charges for more than one and half years. The primary contention of the petitioners is that P.W.1 was chief- examined on 22.08.2025, however, DNA report was made ready on 18.12.2025, and received by the Court on 21.12.2025. Consequently, the Section 207 of Cr.P.C. proceedings incomplete and the petitioners were handicapped to cross-examine without DNA report. Further, the previous counsel failed to take necessary steps to defend the petitioner, leading to a change of counsel. These vital facts have not been considered by the trial Court and dismissed the petitions by relying on the Vinoth Kumar case, Section 33 (5) of the POCSO Act and the order in HCP (MD) No.147 of 2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16838 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent fairly submitted that the case was kept pending for framing of charges from 01.09.2023 to 11.06.2025. He confirmed that DNA report which forms part under Section 207 was only ready on 18.12.2025 and received by the trial Court on 21.12.2025, after P.W.1 was examined on 22.08.2025. The copy of the DNA report was served on the petitioners. 4.Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 5.This Court is of the view that Vinoth Kumar case pertains to the Prevention of Corruption Act. While Section 33 (5) of the POCSO Act, states that a child witness should not be frequently recalled, it is subject to the compliance of 207 proceedings. Since, DNA report was furnished only after 21.12.2025, the petitioners were handicapped when P.W.1 was examined on 22.08.2025. Since, A1 / Sugumar charged for penetrative sexual assault and rape, he cannot establish his defence. It is also seen that, P.W.1 has not yet been cross-examined by any of the accused. The evidence of a witness must be tested through cross-examination which would be beneficial for both the accused and the prosecution, thereby enabling the trial Court to reach a just decision. Accordingly, the order passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under Pocso Act, Thiruvannamalai in Crl.M.P.Nos.942 & 1315 of 2025 in Spl.SC.No.44 of 2023 on 04.03.2026 are set aside. The trial Court is directed to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination. On the date of the appearance of the P.W.1, the petitioners shall complete the cross-examination on payment of costs of Rs.2500/- each to P.W.1. It is made clear that P.W.1 shall be recalled on only one occasion and the cross- examination must be completed without any delay.” 3. It is now submitted that P.W.1 has not yet been cross-examined on behalf of the said accused. The petitioner also seeks permission to cross- examine the very same witness. Since this Court has already permitted the other accused to cross-examine P.W.1 on a single day, this petition is also liable https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16838 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 to be allowed on the same terms and conditions contained in paragraph 5 of the order extracted above. 4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/- within ten (10) days from today, failing which this Criminal Original Petition shall stand automatically dismissed without any further reference to this Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed 01-07-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No av To 1. The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The Inspector of Police Vanapuram Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. 3. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16838 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. av CRL OP No. 16838 of 2026 and Crl.MP.No.11167 of 2026 01-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis