Quashed¶18

Inspector Of Police Vedaranyam Ps v. Karthik

Madras HC14 Oct 2025SUO MOTU TR/17480/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: suo motu transfer; quashing of pending criminal case; speedy trial; passage of time; non-execution of warrant; Section 4(1)(d) TN Prohibition Act; illicit alcohol; Vedaranyam; Nagapattinam; District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court; Dedicated Bench; Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025; STC.No.479 of 2025; 2021 occurrence; Additional Public Prosecutor.

What did the court decide?

STC.No.479 of 2025 quashed; Suo Motu Transfer Case disposed of; Trial Court directed to classify the case appropriately, consider applications such as disposal of properties, and dispatch copies of the order to all concerned. ¶18

Inspector Of Police Vedaranyam Ps Vs Karthik — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Suo Motu TR.No.17480 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Suo Motu TR.No.17480 of 2025 (S.T.C.No.479 of 2025 of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedaranyam, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam)

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Suo Motu Case is dealt with in an extraordinary manner by the Dedicated Bench, pursuant to Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025.

¶10

2.The case in STC.No.479 of 2025 was taken on the file of the District

¶11

Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedaranyam, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam for the alleged offence under Section 4 (1) (d) of TN Prohibition Act. The occurrence is of the year 2021. The allegation in this case is that the accused said to have been preparing illicit alcohol. There is no previous or subsequent case against the accused.

¶12

Page No.1 of 2

¶13

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

¶14

Suo Motu TR.No.17480 of 2025

¶15

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶16

3.Considering the factual matrix, context of the case, the reason for absence from his usual place, and the submission that, despite best efforts, the warrant could not be executed, it is evident that even if the accused is brought

¶17

to face trial, it would impinge upon his right to a speedy trial. Due to the passage of time, a meaningful trial is unlikely, and no useful purpose would be served.

¶18

4.Accordingly, the case in STC.No.479 of 2025 of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedaranyam, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam, stands quashed. This Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

¶19

14.10.2025

¶20

¶21

Note to the Trial Court: This order is digitally signed and communicated electronically alone. The Trial Court shall take note of the order and accordingly classify the case pending before them as allowed / dismissed / disposed of, etc, and while doing so, consider any applications such as disposal of properties, etc., and pass appropriate orders, as may be necessary. Further, the Court below is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to all concerned.

¶22

Suo Motu TR.No.17480 of 2025

¶23

Page No.2 of 2

¶24

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

Inspector Of Police Vedaranyam Ps v. Karthik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inspector Of Police Vedaranyam Ps v. Karthik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sub Inspector of Police Chinnasalem Vs Sakthivel

Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur Vs Dhasarathan, S/o. Subran

Inspector of Police Alangiyam P.S. Vs Babu

The Inspector of Police, Vettaikaraniruppu Vs Nithiyanantham

R-4, Inspector of Police Vs Pradeep

Inspector of Police Vs Kumaresan