Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J
Nallusamy – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By its, Sub-Inspector of Police, R-11, Ramapuram Police Station, Ramapuram, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.17801 of 2025 | C.C.No.450 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Senthilvel
For the Respondents:Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
The High Court refrains from imposing fixed time limits for trial disposal but instructs expediting cases amidst backlog.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition arises from Section 528 of BNSS 2023. Facts of the Case: The petitioner seeks to expedite the trial in C.C.No.450 of 2023 due to the backlog of cases.
Findings of Court:
The court refers to Supreme Court decisions advising against fixed time limits but directs expedited handling.
Issues: The court considers if a time-bound directive is warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for the trial court to manage its schedule while noting the backlog.
Result: Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for expediting trial. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court reiterated procedural safeguards and discretion. (Para 3 , 4) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.06.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.No.17801 of 2025 Nallusamy ... Petitioner Vs State Rep. By its, Sub-Inspector of Police, R-11, Ramapuram Police Station, Ramapuram, Chennai ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, to direct the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Poonamallee, to expedite the trial in C.C.No.450 of 2023 and conclude the same within a stipulated time limit.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the Judicial magistrate Court No.1, Poonamallee, to expedite the trial Court in C.C.No.450 of 2023 and conclude the same within a stipulated time limit.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. It would be appropriate to note 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 has observed that the High Courts are fixing a time- bound schedule for conclusion of the trials in a routine manner despite the decisions 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."
4. In view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is not inclined to fix any specific time limit. The case is of the year 2023, hence, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial in C.C.No.450 of 2023 and dispose of the same as early as possible and as per roaster.
