De-facto complainant sought a direction to expedite trial of a dowry and cruelty case pending four years without commencement. Trial court directed to complete trial within four months, with coercive action permitted against dilatory accused; petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22705 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22705 of 2024
Sumitha Rani ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Marthandam, Kanniyakumari District. (Crime No.52 of 2018) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.33 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, Kanniyakumari District, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illanchezian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner/de-facto complainant had lodged a complaint, which led to the registration of a case in Crime No.52 of 2018 for
1/4
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22705 of 2024
offences under Sections 498A and 506(i) of the I.P.C., and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.33 of 2020. However, the case has been adjourned periodically, without any progress in the trial. The accused has been successful in stalling the trial, and the trial Court has shown a lack of seriousness in proceeding with the trial. As a result, the trial has not even commenced for the past four years.
2 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
warrants were pending against A2 and A3, but both accused have now appeared, and the non-bailable warrants were recalled on 08.10.2024. The case is now posted for trial on 06.01.2025. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further stated that totally there are nine witnesses, and the entire case can be completed within a stipulated period, preferably, within four months.
3 . In view of the above said submissions, this Court directs the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months from the
2/4
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22705 of 2024
date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event the accused adopt any dilatory tactics to delay the trial, coercive action, including confinement of the accused, shall be taken to ensure the timely completion of the trial.
4 . With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
NCC : Yes / No 20.12.2024 Index : Yes / No smn2
To
3/4
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22705 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22705 of 2024
Dated: 20.12.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court can be directed to complete the pending trial in C.C.No.33 of 2020 within a stipulated time.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sumitha Rani
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Marthandam, Kanniyakumari District
M.Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
