Quashed¶25

Inspector of police, K.N.Palayam v. Rajamani

Madras HC8 Sept 2025SUO MOTU TR/3301/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; suo motu transfer case; quashing of pending criminal trial; C.C.No.34 of 2020, Judicial Magistrate Court Palladam, Tiruppur; Cr.No.426 of 2019; Sections 279, 338, 304(A) IPC; road accident 24.11.2019; Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station; accused absent, summons unserved; speedy trial under Article 21 principles (speedy justice); compensation paid to defacto-complainant; Dedicated Bench; Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.)No.618 of 2025; D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.; order dated 08.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case C.C.No.34 of 2020 (Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam) stands quashed; the Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of, with consequential directions to the trial court to classify the case, consider disposal-of-property applications and circulate the order. ¶25

Inspector of police, K.N.Palayam Vs Rajamani — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the pending case C.C.No.34 of 2020 (Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam) should be quashed, given the failure to serve summons despite best efforts, the passage of time since 2019, and the accused's right to a speedy trial.

¶23

Court's answer

Even if the accused were 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

Ratio / Principle

The case in C.C.No.34 of 2020 of Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur stands quashed, and the Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

¶25

Key takeaways

The Trial Court is directed to take note of the order, classify the pending case as allowed / dismissed / disposed of etc., consider applications such as disposal of properties and pass appropriate orders; the court below shall dispatch copies of the order to all concerned.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), dealing with Suo Motu TR.No.3301 of 2025 through a Dedicated Bench pursuant to Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.)No.618 of 2025, quashed C.C.No.34 of 2020 (Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam), which arose from Cr.No.426 of 2019 registered under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) IPC for an accident of 24.11.2019. Noting that the defacto-complainant had received compensation, that the matter had been pending since 2019, and that summons could not be served on the accused despite best efforts, the Court held that bringing the accused to trial would impinge 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 case stands quashed and the transfer case is disposed of; the trial court is directed to classify the case appropriately, consider disposal-of-property applications and dispatch copies of the order to all concerned.

¶1

Suo Motu TR.No.3301 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Suo Motu TR.No.3301 of 2025

¶7

(C.C.No.34 of 2020 of Judicial Magistrate Court Palladam, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur)

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station.

... Petitioner

Vs.

Rajamani

.... Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

2.This case is registered in Cr.No.426 of 2019 for the alleged offences

¶18

under Sections 279, 338 and 304 (A) of the I.P.C. The accident was occurred on 24.11.2019. It is reported that the defacto-complainant has received the

¶19

compensation. The matter has been pending since 2019.

¶20

Page No.1 of 3

¶21

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

¶22

Suo Motu TR.No.3301 of 2025

¶23

3.Considering the factual matrix, context of the case, the reason for absence from his usual place, and the submission that, despite best efforts, 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.

¶24

4.Accordingly, the case in C.C.No.34 of 2020 of Judicial Magistrate

¶25

Court Palladam, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur, stands quashed. This Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

¶26

08.09.2025

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

Page No.2 of 3

¶30

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

¶31

Suo Motu TR.No.3301 of 2025

¶32

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶33

¶34

Suo Motu TR.No.3301 of 2025

¶35