SHO Thermal P.S v. Vijayakumar

Madras HC9 Oct 2025SUO MOTU TR/17880/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Suo Motu TR.No.17880 of 2025; C.C.No.104 of 2022; District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli Taluk, Cuddalore; Crime No.492 of 2020 dated 23.07.2020; Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC; Vijayakumar; Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal Police Station; Mrs.G.V.Kasthuri, APP; Dedicated Bench pursuant to Suo Motu.W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025; quashing of criminal proceedings; speedy trial; passage of time; MCOP compensation already received; summons/warrant not served/executed; disposal dated 09.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2022 pending before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli Taluk, Cuddalore, and disposal of the Suo Motu Transfer Case, with consequential directions to the Trial Court. ¶¶24

SHO Thermal P.S Vs Vijayakumar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the pending proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2022 ought to be quashed, considering the factual matrix, antecedents of the accused, failure to serve/execute summons or warrant, receipt of compensation by the defacto complainant, and the likelihood that a meaningful trial is no longer possible.

¶¶22

Court's answer

Even if the accused were brought to face trial, it would impinge upon his right to a speedy trial.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Due to the passage of time, a meaningful trial is unlikely, and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli Taluk, Cuddalore stand quashed and the Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.ratio¶¶24
The Trial Court is directed to take note of the order and classify the pending case as allowed/dismissed/disposed of, etc., consider any applications such as disposal of properties, and pass appropriate orders; the Court below is further directed to dispatch the copy of this order to all concerned.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), Suo Motu TR.No.17880 of 2025, decided 09.10.2025 (arising out of C.C.No.104 of 2022, District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli Taluk, Cuddalore): The criminal proceedings arising from Crime No.492 of 2020 dated 23.07.2020, registered for alleged offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, were quashed. The defacto complainant had already filed an MCOP claim petition and received compensation; despite best efforts the summons/warrant could not be served/executed. The Court held that bringing the accused to trial would impinge on his right to speedy trial, that due to the passage of time a meaningful trial is unlikely and no useful purpose would be served, and accordingly quashed the proceedings and disposed of the Suo Motu Transfer Case. The Trial Court was directed to classify the case appropriately, consider any applications (including disposal of properties), and dispatch the copy of the order to all concerned.

¶1

Suo Motu TR.No.17880 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Suo Motu TR.No.17880 of 2025

¶7

(C.C.No.104 of 2022 of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli Taluk, Cuddalore.)

¶8

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Cuddalore District. ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

Vijayakumar ... Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner : Mrs.G.V.Kasthuri, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Suo Motu Case is dealt with in an extraordinary manner by the

¶14

Dedicated Bench, pursuant to Suo Motu.W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025.

¶15

This Case in Crime No.492 of 2020 dated 23.07.2020 is registered

¶16

for alleged offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal

¶17

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶18

1/2

¶19

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

¶20

Suo Motu TR.No.17880 of 2025

¶21

Code.

¶22

rna Code. The defacto complainant already filed MCOP claim petition and received the compensation. Considering the factual matrix, context of the case, the antecedents of the accused, the reason for absence from his usual place, and the submission that, despite best efforts, the summons / warrant could not be served / executed, it is evident that even if the accused is brought 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.

¶23

Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2022 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli Taluk, Cuddalore is

¶24

quashed and this Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

¶25

09.10.2025

¶26

rna

¶27

NOTE: 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.

¶28

Suo Motu TR.No.17880 of 2025

¶29

2/2

¶30

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

SHO Thermal P.S v. Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SHO Thermal P.S v. Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Pugazhenthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Sub Inspector of Police, South Ps,Tiruppur Vs Loganathan @ Logu

Subramani Vs Jothi @ Jothiswaran 1 Other

Sho, D Nagar P.S. Vs Assen

Sho, Traffic west, Puducherry Vs Sobica

Jayaraman.P Vs Seenivasan.M And 9 Others