K.Sekar v. The Inspector of Police

ORDER This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in connection with the C.C.No. 96 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

¶2Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R3, a case in Crime No.347 of 2024 was registered on the file of the respondent Police against the petitioner and on completion of investigation, a final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Arakkonam, Ranipet District, for the offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.96 of 2025.

¶3When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents one and two would submit that charges have been framed against the petitioner and totally eight witnesses have been examined.

¶4At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and also prayed that a direction may be issued to the learned trial Judge, to complete the case within a specified period.

¶5Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶6It is pertinent to state that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, has held that the constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other court. The relevant portion of the said decision for the sake of ready reference is reproduced below: "47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending." (emphasis supplied by this Court).

¶7It has also been held in the aforesaid extracted portion that in exceptional circumstances, constitutional courts may issue directions for time bound disposal of cases.

¶8Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the fact that charges have been framed against the petitioner, which, in the opinion of this Court is an exceptional circumstance, this Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Arakkonam, Ranipet District, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.96 of 2025, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9With the above direction, this criminal original petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.02.2026 dsn Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate No.-II,

Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶3The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Ranipet District. Crime No. 347/2024.

¶4The Public Prosecutor,

Madras High Court.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. dsn

and Crl.MP.No.2343 of 2026

12.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.02.2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.MP.No.2343 of 2026 K.Sekar ...Petitioner Vs. 1. The Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Ranipet District. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Ranipet District. Crime No. 347/2024. 3. M.Ajithkumar ...Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash the entire proceedings in connection with the C.C.No. 96 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Arakkonam Ranipet District. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Senthamizh Selvan For R1&R2 : Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)