Disposed¶30

Selvarani v. Chinnasamy

Madras HC19 Jan 2026CRL OP(MD)/780/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-delivery of criminal judgment; delay by trial Magistrate at judgment stage; Section 482 Cr.P.C. direction/supervision of subordinate judiciary; Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli; C.C.No.949 of 2020; judgment stage reopened repeatedly; arguments closed 07.03.2024; High Court order dated 19.01.2026 unheeded; registry report called for; compliance monitoring; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; R.Vijayakumar, J.; 13.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition neither allowed nor dismissed; kept alive pending supervisory action. Registry directed to call for a report from the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli on why the judgment in C.C.No.949 of 2020 was not delivered despite the Court's directions and at whose instance the case is being reopened; report due on or before 06.04.2026; matter posted on 07.04.2026.

Selvarani Vs Chinnasamy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should direct the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli to pronounce judgment in C.C.No.949 of 2020 and dispose of the case within a stipulated time (petitioner's prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C.). +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Court found from the e-filing extract that the criminal case had been posted for judgment on at least three occasions, the judgments were not delivered, and every time the case was reopened.

¶27

Key takeaways

The Court found that, notwithstanding its order dated 19.01.2026 directing pronouncement of the judgment within two weeks, the matter was still being adjourned repeatedly and no explanatory report had been submitted.ratio¶26
The Court ordered the registry to call for a report from the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli explaining why the judgment in C.C.No.949 of 2020 has not been delivered despite the Court's directions and at whose instance the matter is being reopened.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Crl. OP(MD).No.780 of 2026, 13.03.2026 — R.Vijayakumar, J. Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition by Selvarani seeking a direction to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli to pronounce judgment in C.C.No.949 of 2020 and dispose of it within a stipulated time. An earlier order of this Court dated 19.01.2026 had recorded that arguments were closed on 07.03.2024 and the case stood posted for judgment from 15.03.2024, yet judgment remained undelivered; the Magistrate was directed to pronounce it within two weeks of receipt of that order, with compliance reporting fixed for 24.02.2026, which did not materialise. The e-filing extract showed the trial case listed 'for judgment' on 15.03.2024, reopened on 01.04.2024, carried under 'for judgment' for nearly 25 hearings (06.07.2024–09.10.2024), reopened and re-posted for judgment (12.03.2025; hearings on 25.04.2025, 27.05.2025, 10.06.2025), again opened on 17.06.2025 without delivery, and thereafter adjourned 'for arguments' for over 25 hearings. The Court observed that the case had been posted for judgment at least three times without delivery and that, despite its 19.01.2026 direction, the matter was still being adjourned with no report forthcoming. The registry was directed to call for a report from the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli stating why judgment had not been delivered despite the Court's directions and at whose instance the case was being reopened, to reach the Court on or before 06.04.2026; the matter was posted to 07.04.2026.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 13.03.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶5

Crl. OP(MD).No.780 of 2026

Selvarani

....Petitioner

1.Chinnasamy

2.Chithirakani 3.Bothaipandi

¶11

4.Chinnayiyammal

¶12

....Respondents

¶13

Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to issue appropriate direction to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli to pass the judgment in C.C.No.949 of 2020 and dispose the same within a stipulated time and to issue such other suitable direction.

¶14

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The above petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Judicial

¶17

Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli to pass the judgment in C.C.No.949 of 2020.

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

2.This Court by an order dated 19.01.2026 had recorded that the arguments of the parties were closed on 07.03.2024 and it was posted on 15.03.2024 for judgment. Even thereafter, the judgment was not delivered.

¶21

Therefore, this Court has directed the concerned Judicial Magistrate to pronounce the judgement within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶22

3.For reporting compliance, it was posted on 24.02.2026. However, it was not listed on the said date and it is listed today.

¶23

4.A perusal of the e-filing extract reveals that for the first time, it was posted for judgment on 15.03.2024 and it has been reopened on 01.04.2024. Thereafter, again it was posted for judgment on 01.04.2024 and it was listed under the same caption for nearly 25 hearings from 06.07.2024 to 09.10.2024. Thereafter, again the matter has been reopened and posted for arguments on 16.01.2024. After conclusion of arguments, it was posted on 12.03.2025 for judgment. However, the judgment was not delivered and it was posted under the caption 'for judgment' for three hearings on 25.04.2025, 27.05.2025 and 10.06.2025. Without delivering judgment, again the case was opened on 17.06.2025. From then onwards, for more than 25 hearings, the matter is adjourned under the caption ' for arguments' and it is listed on 18.03.2026.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

5.This Court by its order dated 19.01.2026 had directed a specific direction to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy to pronounce the judgment in C.C.No.949 of 2020 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Despite this order, the matter is being adjourned again and again and even a report has not been submitted before this Court explaining why the judgment has not been delivered.

¶27

6.It could be seen from e-filing extract, the criminal case was posted for judgment at least on three occasions but they were not delivered and every time, the case has been reopened.

¶28

7.The registry is directed to call for a report from the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli why the judgment has not been delivered in the said case despite directions issued by this Court and at whose instance the matter is being reopened by the Court.

¶29

8.The report shall reach this Court on or before 06.04.2026.

¶30

9.Post the matter on 07.04.2026.

¶31

13-03-2026

¶32

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No msa

¶33

3/5

¶34

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