Dr. P. Devadass, J.

As the factual matrix is intermixed in both the petitions, they were mixed together, heard together and are being disposed of together today.

2. In Crl.O.P. No. 6494 of 2016, the de facto complainant in Crime No. 2074 of 2009 registered by Dharmapuri Town Police, seeks direction to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, to expeditiously conduct the trial of the Sessions Case in S.C. No. 90 of 2015.

3. In Crl.R.C. No. 132 of 2016, A-18 in the said case canvasses the correctness of the dismissal of his discharge petition in Crl.M.P. No. 2405 of 2015 by the said Court.

4. Both the petitions relate to one Veeramani's murder that took place on 24.11.2009, in Dharmapuri Town. As many as 31 persons were accused of killing him. One of them is A-18.

5. The learned committal Magistrate took cognizance on the Final Report filed by the police. Committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dharmapuri. The accused are now being tried in the said Court in S.C. No. 90 of 2015.

6. A-18 sought for his discharge from the case on the ground that he has been implicated in this case without any incriminating materials and on the alleged date of occurrence, he was not present at the killing field, he was 'elsewhere' (alibi).

7. Prosecution countered his plea.

8. Perusing to the materials collected and presented by the Investigation Officer, through his (final) report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and hearing both sides, the trial Court concluded that there is ground to proceed further as against A-18 for offences under Section 120-B r/w certain specific IPC offences, Sections 148, 149 r/w 302, Section 307 r/w 149 and 324 IPC. Thus, refused to discharge him from the case.

9. However, the trial Court, instead of charging him accordingly (See Section 228(1) Cr.P.C.) and recording his plea (See Section 228(2) Cr.P.C.) adjourning the case from time to time.

10. At this juncture, the de facto complainant filed Crl.O.P. No. 6494 of 2016 for a direction for the expeditious disposal of the said case.

11. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-18, the de facto complainant/informant has not named A-18 in the F.I.R. Even in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he did not do so. However, only subsequently through police statements stated to have been obtained from some witnesses, he has been implicated in this case. As against him, it is a put up case.

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the presence of A-18 when the unlawful pact to eliminate the deceased was hatched has been spoken to Witness Nos. 24 and 25. Further, at the killing spot, the presence of A-18 armed with the deadly weapon also has been spoken to by witness Nos. 12 and 13 in their police statements. Thus, there are incriminating materials to link A-18 for conspiracy, his being a member of unlawful assembly, so he is also vicariously liable for the consequences ensued from the overt act committed by the said unlawful assembly.

13. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant/Intervenor reiterated the said submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He would also submit that the de facto complainant is very much interested in the quick disposal of the case.

14. I have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsels, perused the impugned order, dated 20.01.2016, averments in the petition and the counter filed by the Investigation Officer/Inspector, C.B.C.I.D., Dharmapuri and the relevant materials on record.

15. Relating to the murder of one Veeramani, a criminal case for certain cognisable offences has been registered by the Dharmapuri Town police. The Investigation Officer collected the evidence and submitted his (final) report to the committal Court together with materials mentioning about the role of each accused and the offences they appears to have committed. Specific role has been assigned to A-18 viz., co-conspirator, member of unlawful assembly which had committed murder, attempted on the