IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.09.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Crl.O.P.No.22201 of 2024 Arun Jain ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur C.C.No.734 of 2017 ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,/ 528 BNSS, pleased to call for the entire records in C.C.No.734 of 2017 (Crime No.4 of 2013) pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tiruppur and set aside the order passed on

08.03.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.M.Bhalla For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police.

2. The petitioner herein is one of the accused in C.C.No.734 of

2017, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruppur. Since Accused 4 and 5 in that case were not appeared before the Court, summons and warrant issued against them but the same could not be served and executed due to absconding. In the said circumstances, proceedings in the case was delayed and the defacto complainant, Suresh Kumar earlier approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24584 of 2022 seeking expeditious disposal of the case within time frame.

3. While considering the said petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:-

“In view of the above submission, this Court directs the respondent police to file a split up petition before the trial Court and also take steps to secure A4 and A5. If there is any further delay, declare them as proclaimed offender, split the case and proceed with the trial against A1 to A3. There are 43 witnesses listed. On filing of petition for proclamation, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruppur is directed to give top priority, proceed with the trial and dispose of the case preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

4. Pursuant to this direction, the prosecution has filed the petition under Rule 32(3) of the Criminal Rules of Practice to split up the case against A4 and A5 in C.C.No.734 of 2017. This petition was opposed by A1 to A3 by filing counter stating that before complying the conditions stipulated in Rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, particularly, the proclamation of the absconding accused, Court cannot proceed with the splitting of the case. The trial Court has to take all efforts to procure the absconding accused or else split up the case as against the absconding accused will greatly prejudice the Accused 1 to 3.

5. Relying upon Section 299 Cr.P.C., the Section 29 and 32 of Criminal Rules of Practice as well as the terms stipulated by the High Court in its order dated 26.06.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.24584 of 2022, the Accused 1 to 3 resisted the Court from passing order for splitting up the case against the absconding accused A4 and A5. However, the trial Court, considering the reasons stated by the prosecution to split up the case and the counter filed by the A1 to A3 resisting the application, has allowed the application to split up the case against A4 and A5, who are absconding accused in C.C.No734 of 2017.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petitioner who is A3 has preferred a revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. It was again canvassed that the non compliance of Section 82 of Cr.P.C., and the terms laid in Rule 32 of Criminal Rules of Practice has caused great prejudice to the petitioner herein. It was contended that the prosecution cannot rely upon the order passed by the High Court as a direction issued and violate the mandatory requirements imposed under the Criminal Rules of Practice, for splitting up the case against the absconding accused. Section 299 of Cr.P.C., has no application to the case in hand, since the Calender Case against this petitioner and the absconding