Quashed¶4

Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam P.S,Tiruppur v. Jeeva

Madras HC10 Oct 2025SUO MOTU TR/18770/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suo Motu TR 18770 of 2025; Madras High Court; D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J.; quashing of criminal case for delay; C.C.No.818 of 2019 Additional Mahila Court Tiruppur; Cr.No.626 of 2018; Section 392 IPC robbery; stolen property recovered and returned; no antecedents; warrant stage; summons unserved; defacto complainant unwilling to pursue; right to speedy trial; no useful purpose of trial; Dedicated Bench; Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025; order dated 10.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

C.C.No.818 of 2019 (Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur) quashed and the Suo Motu Transfer Case disposed of. Trial Court directed to take note of the order, classify the case as allowed/dismissed/disposed of as appropriate, consider applications such as disposal of properties, and dispatch a copy of the order to all concerned. ¶4

Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam P.S,Tiruppur Vs Jeeva — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the pending criminal case C.C.No.818 of 2019 should be quashed in view of the passage of time, non-service of summons despite best efforts, recovery and return of stolen property, absence of antecedents, and the defacto complainant's stated unwillingness to pursue the case.

¶3

Court's answer

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.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

The case in C.C.No.818 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur, Tiruppur Taluk stands quashed and the Suo Motu Transfer Case stands disposed of.

¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), Suo Motu TR.No.18770 of 2025 arising out of C.C.No.818 of 2019 (Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur) from Cr.No.626 of 2018 under Section 392 IPC: criminal case quashed. Stolen property had been recovered and returned to the defacto complainant; the accused had no previous or subsequent cases; the trial was pending only at the warrant stage and summons could not be served despite best efforts; the defacto complainant stated he did not wish to pursue the case. Holding that bringing the accused to trial would impinge on his right to a speedy trial, that a meaningful trial was unlikely due to the passage of time, and that no useful purpose would be served, the Court quashed C.C.No.818 of 2019 and disposed of the Suo Motu Transfer Case, directing the Trial Court to classify the case accordingly, consider property-disposal applications, and circulate the order.

¶1

Suo Motu TR.No.18770 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.10.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

Suo Motu TR.No.18770 of 2025 (C.C.No.818 of 2019 of Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur, Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur)

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶7

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.

¶8

2.The case was registered in Cr.No.626 of 2018 dated 03.07.2018 for the alleged offence under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is reported that stolen property has already been recovered and returned to the defacto complainant and there is no previous or subsequent case as against the accused. Further, it is submitted that the case is presently pending at the stage of warrant. The defacto complainant is present before the Court and has stated that he does not want to pursue the case any further.

¶9

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 could not be served, 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.

¶10

Page No.1 of 2

¶11

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

¶12

Suo Motu TR.No.18770 of 2025

¶13

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶14

Accordingly, the case in C.C.No.818 of 2019 on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur, Tiruppur Taluk shall stands quashed and this Suo Motu Transfer Case stands disposed of.

¶15

10.10.2025

¶16

nsl

¶17

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.

¶18

Suo Motu TR.No.18770 of 2025

¶19

Page No.2 of 2

¶20

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

Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam P.S,Tiruppur v. Jeeva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam P.S,Tiruppur v. Jeeva

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

Chinnasalem Ps Vs Thileepkumar

Si of police,Omalur P.S. Vs Murugan and 4 others

Si of Police Salavakkam Vs Prathap

Inspector of Police, Kavindapadi Police Station Vs Balaji

Sub Inspector of Police Vs Ravi

Si of Police Vs Sudhakar