- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 28 January 2026
- Bench
- A.D.Jagadish Chandira
- Case no.
- CRL OP 32623/2022
Judgment
ORDER When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and also made an endorsement to that effect. Further, he submitted that the charge sheet is of the year 2022 and hence, the Trial Court may be directed to complete the trial within a specified time. He further submitted that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.
¶2The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that the case stands posted on 09.02.2026 for examination of L.W-1 to L.W-3 and there are seven other witnesses are to be examined.
¶3In view of the submission and the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as regards withdrawal, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.20116 of 2022 is closed.
¶4As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for a direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial within a time frame, it 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).
¶5It has also been held in the aforesaid extracted portion that in exceptional circumstances, constitutional courts may issue directions for time bound disposal of cases.
¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering that the case is of the year 2022 and the same has been pending for the past three years, which, in the opinion of this Court is an exceptional circumstance, this Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Tambaram, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.198 of 2022, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from 09.02.2026, i.e., the next date of hearing.
¶7Further, acceding to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., passing of judgment, or any other date as may be required by the trial Court. However, it is made clear that he shall be represented by his counsel before the trial Court on all hearing dates. Accordingly, Crl.M.P.No.20117 of 2022 stands ordered. 28-01-2026 SRM
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. SRM To
¶1The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tambaram.
¶2The Inspector Of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station (S-14), Perungalathur, Chennai.
¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 28-01-2026
Case details
Parties and counsel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.Nos.20116 and 20117 of 2022 Joshua Mani .. Petitioner Vs 1. The State Rep. by The Inspector Of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station (S-14), Perungalathur, Chennai. (Cr.No.58/2022) 2. Divya ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No. 198 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Tambaram and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. G.Justin For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D. Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1
Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.