A petitioner cannot delay trial proceedings without merit; non-pressed applications render requests for deferment infructuous.

ORDER

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.1259 of 2021 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam, arising out of Crime No.990 of 2021 of Karunagappally Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are 406, 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He preferred this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of the Cr.PC with a prayer to direct the Sessions Judge to defer the trial until the disposal of Annexure-2 application.

2. The prayer in Annexure-2 was to defer the case, which was scheduled for trial on 03.04.2023 and to reschedule the trial. In the body of Annexure-2, it is alleged that copy of further statements recorded from some of the witnesses were not given to the petitioner. It is also contended that Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice was not complied and that copy of 164 Cr.PC statements were also not served on the petitioner.

3. When this matter came up for arguments, the mother and son of the deceased filed Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2026, praying for impleading them as additional respondents on the ground that the petitioner is protracting the trial under one pretext or another. Considering the fact that this Court is disposing of this Crl.M.C today, I am not inclined to allow Crl.M.A.No.1of

2026.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after this Court passed an interim order staying the trial in S.C.No.1259 of 2021 for a period of one month as per order dated 03.07.2023, the petitioner has not pressed Annexure-2 and accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed Annexure-2 as not pressed. Therefore, it appears that after filing Annexure-2 before the trial court, the petitioner approached this Court, praying for deferring the trial, obtained an interim stay and thereafter not pressed Annexure-2. As a consequence, the trial in S.C.No.1259 of 2021 was kept pending for more than two and half years. At this stage, the petitioner prayed for permission to file a fresh application before the Sessions Court. Since Annexure-2 was not pressed, I do not find any ground to grant permission to the petitioner to file a fresh application, as submitted by the learned Counsel.

I do not find any merit in this Crl.M.C. The purpose for which it was filed already became infructuous and accordingly this Crl.M.C is dismissed. The interim stay granted by this Court is vacated. Intimate the trial court.

Sd/-