Quashed¶17

R-4, Inspector of Police v. Pradeep

Madras HC14 Oct 2025SUO MOTU TR/20699/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; suo motu transfer case; Dedicated Bench; Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025; C.C.No. 2400 of 2020; Cr.No.704 of 2020; Section 285 IPC 1860; bursting crackers on road; summons unserved; right to speedy trial; meaningful trial unlikely; quashed; XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court Saidapet; D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.; 14.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

C.C.No. 2400 of 2020 (XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai) quashed; the Suo Motu Transfer Case disposed of; Trial Court directed to classify the case, consider ancillary applications (e.g., disposal of properties) and dispatch copies of the order. ¶17

R-4, Inspector of Police Vs Pradeep — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal case C.C.No. 2400 of 2020, pending at summons stage with the summons unserved despite best efforts and much time having passed, ought to be quashed on the ground that bringing the accused to trial would impinge upon his right to a speedy trial and no useful purpose would be served.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the factual matrix, context, antecedents of the accused, reason for absence from his usual place and the failed service of summons, 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.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The case in C.C.No. 2400 of 2020 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai stands quashed, and the Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

¶17

Key takeaways

The Trial Court shall take note of the electronically communicated order, classify the case pending before it as allowed/dismissed/disposed of as appropriate, consider any applications such as disposal of properties, pass appropriate orders as necessary, and dispatch a copy of this order to all concerned.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), dealing with the matter through the Dedicated Bench pursuant to Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025, quashed C.C.No. 2400 of 2020 pending at summons stage before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai, arising from Cr.No.704 of 2020 registered under Section 285 of IPC, 1860 for allegedly bursting crackers in the middle of the road without precautions. With the summons unserved despite best efforts, the Court held that bringing the accused to trial would impinge upon his right to a speedy trial; a meaningful trial was unlikely after the passage of time, and no useful purpose would be served. The Trial Court is directed to classify the case, consider ancillary applications, and circulate the order.

¶1

Suo Motu TR.No.20699 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.10.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

Suo Motu TR.No.20699 of 2025

¶6

(C.C.No. 2400 of 2020 of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai)

¶7

For Petitioner : Ms.G.V.Kasthuri 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

This case, Cr.No.704 of 2020 is registered for alleged offences under Sections 285 of IPC, 1860. The allegation is that without taking any precautions, the accused was bursting crackers in the middle of the road. The case is pending at summons stage.

¶11

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.

¶12

Page No.1 of 2

¶13

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

¶14

Suo Motu TR.No.20699 of 2025

¶15

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶16

rap

¶17

Accordingly, the case in C.C.No. 2400 of 2020 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai , stands quashed. This Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

¶18

14.10.2025

¶19

rap

¶20

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.

¶21

Suo Motu TR.No.20699 of 2025

¶22

Page No.2 of 2

¶23

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

R-4, Inspector of Police v. Pradeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R-4, Inspector of Police v. Pradeep

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

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

Inspector Of Police Vedaranyam Ps Vs Karthik

Inspector of Police Vs Kumaresan