(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.MP. No.9948 of 2025 in Sc 55 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Maglir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai, stay the operation of the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed in Crl.MP. No.9948 of 2025 in S.C. No.55 of 2017 pending disposal of this revision petition and in particular stay the recall/further examination of P.W.1 in S.C.No.55 of 2017 and on hearing the parties, set aside and quash the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.9948 of 2025.)

1. The petitioner/accused, facing trial in S.C. No. 55 of 2017, has challenged the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P. No. 9948 of 2025 dated 18.03.2026, whereby the respondent/complainant was permitted to mark WhatsApp messages exchanged between the accused and the victim in the case.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was registered in the year 2016, the charge sheet was filed in the year 2017, and the trial has substantially progressed. At the fag end of the trial, when the matter was posted for arguments, the prosecution, in order to fill up the lacunae in its case and overcome the points raised by the petitioner, filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to mark screenshots of WhatsApp messages along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner strongly opposed the same and has therefore filed the present petition challenging the said order.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. T.Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandianthavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi and others in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6548 of 2022, dated 06.11.2023, has clearly laid down that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act may be produced before the Trial Court at any stage during the trial, provided it is produced before conclusion of the trial. It was further submitted that the present case relates to allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage and that several messages were exchanged between the victim and the petitioner/accused. The screenshots of such electronic communications, coupled with the medical records already available on record, would further substantiate the prosecution case. Hence, the petition was rightly filed and the Trial Court has correctly allowed the same.

4. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the Section 65-B certificate is now sought to be marked in support of the electronic evidence already produced in the case. The said documents would be marked only subject to admissibility and proof, which would be considered by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. Further, copies of the documents would be furnished to the petitioner/accused, who would also be given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and challenge the said documents.

5. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner that the prosecution is attempting to fill up lacunae in the case by filing the present petition cannot be accepted. The order passed by the Trial Court permitting the marking of the documents does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.