Disposed

Karthic v. the State Rep by

Madras HC21 Dec 2024CRL OP/21372/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition sought directions to the Special Court at Egmore to expedite the disposal of pending criminal case C.C.No.1251 of 2018. The High Court directed the trial court to complete proceedings and decide on merits within three months, mandating strict adherence to forensic procedures to prevent further delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Trial Court to complete proceedings within two months and dispose the case on merits within three months from the date of the order.

Karthic Vs the State Rep by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.21372 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.12.2024

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.21372 of 2024

¶7

Karthick ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State rep. by Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Team-1 Vepery, Chennai - 600 007

¶10

George Fernandaz

¶11

F.Vennila

¶12

(R2 and R3 impleaded as per order dated 17.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.15641/2024 in Crl.OP.No.21372/2024)

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to issue direction to the learned Special Court for CCB & CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai to decide the C.C.No.1251 of 2018 expeditiously and dispose of the same within time limit stipulated by this Court.

¶15

1/7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.21372 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subburaj For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents 2 and 3 : M.K.Boopaty Rajan

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue

¶21

direction to the learned Special Court for CCB & CBCID Cases, Egmore,

¶22

Chennai to decide the case in C.C.No.1251 of 2018 as expeditiously and

¶23

dispose of the same within time the limit to be stipulated by this Court.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

¶25

the defacto complainant in C.C.No.1251 of 2018. There are two accused in this

¶26

case namely the respondents 2 and 3 herein and they both are husband and

¶27

wife. The case is pending for the past six years. Even after examination of all

¶28

the prosecution witnesses, in order to protract the trial, the accused are filing

¶29

petitions after petitions. Earlier, the 2nd accused/third respondent had filed a

¶30

petition seeking signature comparison with the document available with Karur 2/7

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.21372 of 2024 Vysya Bank and also got a favourable order. Once again the petitioner filed a

¶33

similar petition before the trial Court to compare the signature with the

¶34

documents available with Indian Bank and Vijaya Bank. Though the same was

¶35

dismissed by the trial Court, challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15286 of 2024 and got favourable

¶36

order on 01.07.2024. The intention of the accused is that, to drag and delay the

¶37

proceedings. The contention of the petitioner is that, the admitted signature and disputed signature are very much available with the prosecution and instead of

¶38

sending the documents to the Forensic Lab, the trial Court is keeping the trial

¶39

pending. The trial Court is not following the procedure and therefore, the trial

¶40

Court may be directed to dispose the C.C. in accordance with law as early as

¶41

possible within a stipulated time.

¶42

Heard and perused the materials available on record.

¶43

It is seen from the records that the trial has already commenced and

¶44

on 04.01.2020 itself P.W.1 was examined and on 22.07.2024 itself, the last 3/7

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.21372 of 2024 witness was examined. At this stage, the second accused/third respondent has

¶47

filed the petition to compare the signature and got favourable order from this Court.

¶48

However, the trial Court is directed to complete the proceedings with available documents. If at all the second accused/third respondent wants to compare any of the documents, the second accused/third respondent shall produce all the available documents to the trial Judge immediately and on receipt of the same, the trial judge is directed to compare the signature under

¶49

Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. In case the trial Judge is unable to exercise his power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the trial Judge may direct to send the documents under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act

¶50

for getting expert opinion.

¶51

All the above said proceedings have to be completed within a period of two months and the trial has to be decided on merits within a period of three

¶52

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that no 4/7

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.21372 of 2024

¶55

extension of time would be entertained.

¶56

Both the parties are directed to extend their fullest co-operation and

¶57

the prosecution is directed to extend their co-operation for examination of all

¶58

the witnesses if necessary.

¶59

Further, the second accused/third respondent is directed to co-operate

¶60

for the disposal of the case. It is made clear that under the guise of fair opportunity, the second accused/third respondent should not protract the case.

¶61

In case the second accused/third respondent is not co-operating, the learned

¶62

trial Judge is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law.

¶63

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶64

21.12.2024

¶65

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ksa-2

¶66

5/7

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

Crl.O.P.No.21372 of 2024

¶69

¶70

The Special Court for CCB & CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai

¶71

The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Team-1 Vepery, Chennai - 600 007

¶72

6/7

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

Crl.O.P.No.21372 of 2024 P.VELMURUGAN. J.

¶75

Ksa-2

¶76

Crl.O.P.No.21372 of 2024

¶77

21.12.2024

¶78

7/7

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Karthic v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthic v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajalakshmi Vs State Rep by Its

B.Mohan Vs the State Rep.by

Karuppasamy Vs the Commissioner of Police

M.Uthayakumar Vs the State of Tmailnadu Rep by

Sabanayagam Vs State Rep.by Its

Habibunnisa Vs the Commissioner of Police