The right to a speedy trial is fundamental and applies to all criminal prosecutions; excessive delay in proceedings can warrant quashing of charges.

COMMON ORDER

The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9679 of 2025 is an accused in C.C.No.622 of 2025, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9652 of 2025 is an accused in C.C.No.624 of 2025, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9651 of 2025 is an accused in C.C.No.625 of 2025 and petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9646 of 2025 is an accused in C.C.No.626 of 2025.

2.Since all cases arise out of the common FIR in RC.2(S)/2009 dated 09.03.2009 and the grounds raised by the petitioners are identical, all petitions are disposed of by a common order. Added to it, the case against P.Vijay Babu S/o.Perumal against whom charge sheet filed in C.C.No.623 of 2025 died on 01.11.2023 and his case also considered.

3.The case of the prosecution is that this Court in suo motu W.P.(PIL).No.3335 of 2009 observed that “it will also be open to the CBI to register a case on the basis of the Court's Order dated 19^th Feb 2009 relating to the incident that took place in the campus of High Court, Madras on 19.02.2009”. The said order was communicated vide letter No.57/2009 dated 20.02.2009 by the Assistant Registrar (C.S.IV), High Court, Madras. A scanned reproduction of the order is as follows:

4.Thereafter, it was taken up on several hearings and final order was came to be passed in suo motu W.P.(PIL)No.3335 of 2009 on 29.10.2009. The order runs to 744 pages wherein several directions issued and the direction issued to CBI is extracted hereunder:

“IV.Directions to CBI:

(a) We direct CBI to proceed with the investigation in R.C.No.1(s)/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai registered against the lawyers in accordance with law.

(b) In so far as, R.C.No.2(s)/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai, registered against the Police, CBI is directed to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.

(c) The CBI shall proceed with the investigation in both the cases expeditiously and file the final report within three months from the date of this order.”

5.On the above facts as recorded by the High Court, the above case for the offence under Sections 144, 147, 148, 323, 325, 326, 427, 436 and 450 IPC and Section 3(1) and 4 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (TNPPDL Act) in RC.2(S)/2009 registered. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against S.Palanivelrajan S/o.A.Subramanian, Police Constable, Tamil Nadu Commando Force, Chennai, P.Vijay Babu S/o.Perumal, Police Constable, Tamil Nadu Special Police, Veerapuram, Chennai, P.Suresh S/o.Jayaraman, Police Constable, Pudupet, Chennai, R.Rajendran S/o.P.Rangasamy, K-10 Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai and P.Vinayagamurthy, Police Constable/Driver, Kasimedu Police station, Chennai. On completion of investigation, five final reports filed on 12.01.2010.

6.The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that FIR in RC.2(S)/2009 was registered on 09.03.2009 for the attack took place on 19.02.2009 after a delay of 18 days without any reason or explanation for the delay FIR registered. Further FIR is registered against unknown Police Officers and unknown others. The arraying of petitioners by the respondent in the charge sheet is contrary to law and facts. There is no material evidence against the petitioners. He would submit that from the FIR, it is seen that there was some clash and assault on Advocates, Court staf