Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
SATHYAMURTHY – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Annamalai Nagar Police Station – Respondent
CRL OP No. 22103 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.No.15136 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. G.Senthil Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Inordinate delay in proceedings without progress infringes the right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote:The Court considered the prayer for quashing a case under CC No.18 of 2016 against the petitioner, asserting violation of the speedy trial rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the inordinate delay of over nine years without progress. The Court reaffirmed the need for timely action in criminal proceedings, referencing established case law that underscores the importance of a speedy trial. The petitioner's claim of being a juvenile and the absence of evidence were pivotal, resulting in the quashing of the case against him.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inordinate delay in trial process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observation on violation of article 21. (Para 3) |
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the case in CC No.18/2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): K. G.Senthil Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor – R1
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the case in CC No.18 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
2. The final report filed under section 379 of IPC against the petitioner sought to be quashed on the ground that there is no progress in this case. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was a juvenile in the year 2016 and nothing has moved forward against him and no witness has been examined. According to the petitioner, he is only a pillion rider. The main charge is against A1. Despite the fact that the petitioner is a juvenile, the case records have not been sent to Juvenile Justice Board and the Board has not taken any steps to dispose the case. Hence, it is his contention that the case is pending for more than 9 years and no evidence has been let in and the same violates Article 21 of Constitution of India , the speedy trial concept.
3. Admittedly, the case is of the year 2016 and till date no witness has been examined in this case. The same is a clear violation of rights granted under Article 21 of Constitution of India . This aspect has been reiterated in the case in Santhosh De Vs. Archna Guha and others reported in 1994 Supp [3] Supreme Court Cases 735 wherein it has been stated that the unexplained delay of eight years in commencing the trial by itself infringes the right of the accused to speedy trial. In the present case also even after filing of the charge sheet in the year 2016, there is no progress in this case for a petty offence. The petitioner was a juvenile at the time of occurrence and he is only a pillion rider. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that continuing the prosecution, where there is no progress for more than nine years will not serve any purpose.
