Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J
S. Mahendran – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau Investigation – Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019|Crl.O.P.Nos.26343 of 2024|Crl.O.P.Nos.8150 of 2025|Crl.O.P.Nos.9174 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
Inordinate delay in legal proceedings spanning over a decade, combined with a lack of substantial progress in trial, violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial, rendering the continuation of such proceedings an abuse of the court's process.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Investigation - Quashing of proceedings - Inordinate delay in trial - Right to speedy trial as fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India - Where investigation is tainted by procedural lapses, and trial fails to progress for over 15 years, continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes abuse of process of law. (Paras 30, 38)
(B) Legal Profession - Sui generis status - Professional obligations - Role of legal practitioners in safeguarding fundamental rights and maintaining judicial decorum - Need for harmony between bench and bar - Independence of the Bar as essential for a vibrant democracy. (Paras 31-36)
Facts of the case:
Following an incident of violence involving professionals and law enforcement personnel within a judicial complex, multiple criminal cases were registered. The investigative stage involved allegations of bias and procedural shortcomings. Despite charges being filed years prior, the subsequent trial failed to make progress for over 15 years, leading to significant hardship and professional prejudice for the accused who sought the quashing of proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the identification of the accused was based on subjective visual materials from the media, which lacked necessary technical certification and formal identification parade, making the foundational facts of the prosecution shaky. The court emphasized that the legal profession is unique and that the prolonged delay in trial effectively violates the right to a speedy trial under the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the prolonged delay of 15 years in commencing trial and the alleged lack of fair investigation warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: When a criminal case remains pending for an inordinate period without trial progress, and the prosecution's foundational case suffers from inherent evidentiary flaws, the continuation of legal proceedings serves no purpose and amounts to an abuse of the court's process, thereby violating the fundamental rights of the accused.
Result: Criminal Original Petitions allowed; proceedings in the pending case quashed against all accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history of the 2009 high court violence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments alleging biased investigation and trial delay. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. cbi's justification for charges against advocates. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. historical context and escalation of lawyer-police conflict. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. analysis of evidence adequacy and trial delays. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. the unique status and responsibilities of advocates. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. quashing proceedings due to inordinate delay and futility. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
COMMON ORDER
1. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.5101 of 2019 is A13. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.26343 of 2024 is A14. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.8150 of 2025 are A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A12, A15, A16, A17, A18, A21, A22, A24, A25, A26, A27, A29, A31 & A32. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.9174 of 2025 is A33 & A34. All the petitioners are facing trial for offence under Sections 120-B , 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 332, 333, 353, 436 & 450 IPC and Section 3 (1) & 4 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Destruction & Loss) Act, 1992 in P.R.C.No.8 of 2010 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (trial Court).
2. Pursuant to the incident of violence between the Advocates and Police personnels at Madras High Court complex on 19.02.2009, two cases were registered by the respondent/CBI in RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN on 28.02.2009 against the Advocates, the petitioners herein and a case in RC 2(S)/2009/SCB/CHN against unknown Police officials and others on 09.03.2009.
3. Background of the case in RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN is as follows:
(i) B4 High Court Police Station functioning within the Campus of Madras High Court since 1996. Earlier, the Advocates of Madras High Court Boycotted the Court proceedings from 29.01.2009 to 17.02.2009 on Srilankan Tamil issue and on 18.02.2009 against the proposed Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 17.02.2009, when Dr.Subramaniam Swamy, Janata Party leader appeared in the Court Hall No.3 of Madras High Court, a group of Advocates assaulted him and the Police personnels present and disrupted the Court proceedings. The Police (B4 High Court Police Station) registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2009 for offence under Sections 147, 451, 355, 353, 332, 506(ii) and 307 IPC r/w Section 3 (i) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Destruction & Loss) Act, 1992 on 18.02.2019, against 14 named Advocates and 6 others on the complaint by Mr.Khader Mohideen, Assistant Commissioner, High Court Range. The Police made efforts for arrest the named Advocates in Crime No.13 of 2009, on 18.02.2009 and one Advocate arrested.
(ii) On 19.02.2009, the Advocates resumed work and attended the Courts. On that day, Dr.Subramaniam Swamy was again scheduled to appear before the Madras High Court. Taking into account the untoward incident happened on 17.02.2009 and the threat perception, the Police drew up a bandobust scheme and made elaborate security arrangements on 19.02.2009 adding strength to B4 High Court Police Station. Mr.A.K.Viswanathan, I.P.S., (then Additional Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Chennai), Mr.M.Ramasubramani (then Joint Commissioner of Police-North, Chennai) personally supervised the security arrangements. Dr.Subramaniam Swamy attended the Court and left the High Court premises by 11.30 hours. Thereafter, the Police personnels and Officers drafted for bandobust, reassembled at B2 Esplanade Police Station adjoining the High Court Campus for debriefing by the Joint Commissioner of Police (North).
(iii) On 19.02.2009, around noon, in the Library Hall of Madras High Court Advocate Association, some of the Advocates discussed registration of Crime No.13 of 2009 against the Advocates and the attempts made by the Police on 18.02.2009 to arrest Advocates. At that time, a conspiracy hatched to deceive the Police projecting remaining Advocates prepar
