Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J
Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District. – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.2488 of 2025 | Cr.No.1201 of 2021 | S.C.No.53 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Shunmuga Rajeswaran
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
Courts should not impose time limits on trial completions except under exceptional circumstances, preserving judicial discretion.
Headnote:The petition addressed to the III Additional District and Sessions Judge sought direction to conclude the trial in a specified timeframe, underpinned by Section 528 of the BNSS. The Supreme Court directed High Courts to refrain from imposing such timelines except in exceptional circumstances, resulting in the dismissal of the petition. The court observed the importance of judicial discretion in prioritizing case disposal (paragraph 2). The court framed the issue as whether a time limit can be mandated for trial completion and emphasized that it could not be fixed based on the Supreme Court's previous directives (paragraph 2). Thus, the petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for trial completion direction. (Para 1) |
| 2. judicial discretion on trial timelines. (Para 2) |
| 3. petition dismissed. (Para 3) |
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.No.2488 of 2025 ---
Lakshmi .. Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District.
(Cr.No.1201 of 2021) .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS to grant necessary direction directing the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram to complete the trial in S.C.No.53 of 2022 within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.
For petitioner : Mr.T.Shunmuga Rajeswaran For respondents: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER This petition is filed to grant necessary direction to III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram to complete the trial in S.C.No.53 of 2022 within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.
2. In view of the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court and considering the fact that, since thousands of cases are pending in the Courts and the litigants are awaiting in a long queue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.4758 of 2024, dated 25.11.2024, had observed that the High Courts are fixing time-bound schedule for conclusion of trial in a routine manner, despite the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, which reads as under:
"47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending."
3. In view of the above direction of the Honourable Supreme Court, no time limit could be fixed for completion of trial by the trial Court. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
