SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Murali Shankar, J
Karuppan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.344 of 2024 | Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3951 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For the Respondents: Mrs.M.Aasha, Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian

The court emphasized that both fairness and timely justice must be upheld in criminal trials to prevent abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Criminal Revision Petition against order allowing additional evidence - The defacto complainant filed for reception of additional documents after significant delay; the court found abuse of process of law in protracting trial - Order set aside so that justice is observed for both parties. (Paras 12 and 13)

(B) Fair Trial - Ensuring fairness extends to both complainant and accused; the duty of the court is to prevent abuse of legal process regardless of the claims of the complainant. (Paras 12)

(C) Delay in proceedings - Over 23 years of pending trial observed; court consolidates the importance of timely justice. (Paras 12)

Table of Content
1. basis of the complaint and clarification on proceedings. (Para 2)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.

584 of 2024 in C.C.No.183 of 2020, dated 15.03.2024, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Karaikudi, allowing the petition filed under Section 242 (2) Cr.P.C .

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.6 of 2001 against the petitioner and three others for the alleged offences under Section 498-A, 406, 494 I.P.C., and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent police, afer completing the investigation, laid a final report against six persons including the petitioner and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.146 of 2002, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. It is evident from the records that the case as against the fourth accused – Vallikannu was ordered to be split up from the main case and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.115 of 2004. It is also not in dispute that the case as against the first accused – Muthukaruppan was also ordered to split up and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.433 of 2010. After the formation of the Fast Track Court, the cases were transferred to the file of the Fast Track Court and the main case was renumbered as C.C.No.183 of 2020.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top