High Court · 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTCivil Appellate JurisdictionMonday, the Twenty Fourth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty FivePRESENTThe HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL MP(MD). No.2762 of 2025 in CRL OP(MD)2336 of 20241. M.Venkatesh ... Petitioner/Accused No.9 Vs 1 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2 The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, O/o Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 3 The Inspector of Police, Seidunganallur Police Station, Seidunganallur, Thoothukudi District. 4 Selvi, W/o Late. Mayandi, No. 5/100, Sudali Kovil Street, Kalvay, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. ... RespondentsPrayer : CRL MP(MD). No.2762 of 2025 . Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C(U/S 528 ofBNS) To recall the specific direction of outer time limit of three months to concludethe instant case in S.C No. 71/2024 pending before the trial court to ensure thedoctrine of binding precedents and as well as doctrine of stare decisis in Crl O.P(MD)2336/2024 dated 20.02.2024. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prayer:CRL OP(MD). No.2336 of 2024 . Criminal original Petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C Petition coming on fororders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in supportthereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.V.Ramasubbu, Advocate for thePetitioner and of M/s.M.Sakthikumar Ga (Crl Side), Government Advocate for therespondent1 to 3, this Court made the following order:"This petition has been filed by the petitioner to recall the order passed by thisCourt in Crl.O.P(MD)No.2336 of 2024 dated 20.02.2024.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner is one of the accused in this case and he was arrayed as A9. While so, thedefacto complainant who is the fourth respondent herein had approached this Courtin Crl.O.P(MD) No.2336 of 2024 for speedy disposal of the case and this Courtdirected the trial Court to dispose of the case within a period of three months fromthe date of receipt of this order. Therefore the trial Court based on that direction forspeedy disposal of the case within three months conducted the case in a hurriedmanner without giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner filed petitionbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivaikundam under Section 173(8) ofCr.P.C., seeking further investigation but the same was dismissed due to the orderpassed by this Court for speedy disposal by fixing outer limit to complete the trial.More over this Court passed orders without hearing the petitioner and the fourthrespondent herein not impleaded the petitioner as one of the party and got order,thereby violated the principles of natural justice. The fourth respondent also madefalse representation before this Court as against this petitioner ,therefore the order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has to be recalled. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit thatthe husband of the fourth respondent engaged counsel to conduct the case andthereafter due to some difference of opinion between them the said advocatethreatened the husband of the fourth respondent and thereafter her husband wasmurdered, thereby she lodged complaint and the said advocate was arrayed as oneof the accused in this case and the case is pending without any committal andthereby she approached the Court for speedy disposal of the case. This Court alsopassed an order by directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Srivaikundam toensure that the committal proceedings will be completed within a period of onemonth and after committal proceedings the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Thoothukudi shall take steps for earlier disposal within a reasonable period of threemonths. Now inorder to delay the proceedings, the present petition has been filed. 4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A9 in this case and the husbandof the defacto complainant was murdered and in that case the petitioner is one of theaccused and now the case is posted for trial. Earlier the fourth respondentapproached this Court through main petition and the same was allowed directingthe trial Court to complete the trial within a reasonable period of three months andnow the trial is going on. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. According to the petitioner the fourth respondent herein withoutimpleading the petitioner as one of the party obtained order from this Court forspeedy disposal of the case. Another ground raised by the petitioner is that due todirection of this Court the trial Court without giving opportunity hastly passingorders in the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. This Court ought notto have ordered for speedy disposal of the case, since it would affect the fair trial.This Court perused the records. This Court in the main petition passed orders on20.02.2024 by directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivaikundam toensure committal proceedings and complete the same within a period of one monthand after committal of the case the learned Sessions Judge shall take steps for earlydisposal of the case within a reasonable time of three months. The fourthrespondent has not impleaded the accused in the said case as party. Though thepetitioner is not party to the proceedings, speedy disposal will no way affect theright of the petitioner. It is well settled that speedy trial is the fundamental right.7. At this juncture the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied onthe following judgments:a) Abdul Rehman Antulay etc,ETC.vs. R.S. Nayak and another etc., reported in1992 1 SCC 225b) P.Rama chandra Rao .vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2002 4 SCC 578c) High Court Bar Association,Allahabad.vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis reported in 2024 6 SCC 2678. On careful perusal of the above said judgments it is clear that the criminalcourts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on accountof lapse of time and it is neither advisable, nor feasible nor judicially permissible todraw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. Furtherthe Court has to decide whether the trial or proceedings have become soinordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. Such time-limitscannot and will not by themselves be treated by any Court as a bar to furthercontinuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the court toterminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused. In appropriate casesjurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and Articles 226 and 227 ofConstitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions. 9. Since the prayer of the petitioner is in respect of speedy disposal of the casethe said order will no way affect the rights of the petitioner. Non impleading thepetitioner is not a ground to recall the order. More over this Court passed order tocomplete the trial within a period of three months, even now in the month of March2025 no case has been disposed as directed by this Court. It shows that the trialCourt is affording opportunity to the petitioner. Further according to the petitionerthe learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by one of the accused and thesame was dismissed. Similarly before the trial Court also petition to discharge theaccused was filed and the same was also dismissed on the ground of outer limit of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis time fixed by this Court. While so, it is for the aggrieved person to challenge theorder before the appellate Court, without challenging those orders in the mannerknown to law this petition has been filed to recall the order passed by this Court.Therefore the argument of the petitioner that due to the order of this Court forspeedy disposal of the case will affect the right of the petitioner is not acceptable. Itis well settled law if any order obtained by playing fraud the Court can recall theorder. In this case though the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings orderpassed by this Court will no way affect the right of the petitioner since the prayer ofthe petitioner is only for speedy disposal. Therefore the contention of the petitioneris not acceptable and there are no grounds to recall the order. 10. Hence the petition stands dismissed. However the trial Court is directed tocomply with the order of this Court without giving long adjournments and thepetitioner is also directed to co-operate for speedy disposal of the case. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (C.O)// True Copy // / /2025Sub Assistant Registrar(CS - I/II/III/IV)TO1.The judicial magistrate Court No.11 , Srivaikundam. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 3.The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, O/o Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 4.The Inspector of Police, Seidunganallur Police Station, Seidunganallur, Thoothukudi District.Copy to: The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER DATED : 24/03/2025 ========================== ORDER ========================== CRL MP(MD). No.2762 of 2025in CRL OP(MD)2336/2024 KVL(22/05/2025) 7P/ 6CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023.