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) 59840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J
G.Parthiban – Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Kuniyamuthur Police Station Coimbatore – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.19964 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Thirumoorthy
For the Respondents: Dr.C.E.Pratap

Court cannot impose time limits on trial courts, prioritization left to judicial discretion.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks a direction for speedy trial concerning C.C.No.1007 of 2024. The Court, referring to Supreme Court guidelines, declines to impose a specific time limit for trial proceedings. Instead, it emphasizes the discretion of the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case based on its pendency. The petition is thereby disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for a speedy trial (Para 1)
2. supreme court guidelines on trial scheduling (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's decision on time limits for trial (Para 5)
4. final disposition of the petition (Para 6 , 7)

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.No.19964 of 2025 G.Parthiban ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Kuniyamuthur Police Station Coimbatore (Crime No.80 of 2023) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. , to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate-VII, Coimabatore for speedy trial in C.C.No.1007 of 2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate-VII, Coimabatore for speedy trial in C.C.No.1007 of 2024.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is pertinent to state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already given a directions to the High Courts not to give directions to the trial Court fixing specific time limit for disposal of cases in a routine manner and pressurise the trial Court to give priority to a particular case.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra inCriminal 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."

5. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to fix any specific time frame to the trial Court to dispose of the case in C.C.No.1007 of 2024 as sought for by the petitioner.

6. However, depending upon the pendency of the case, the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case and dispose of the same as per roster.

7. With the observations and direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 16.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ksa-2 To

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