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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1886

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Vijayakumar, J.
M.Gopalakrishnan - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Police CBCID Department - Respondent
Crl.OP(MD).No. 548 of 2026 and Crl.MP(MD).No.585 of 2026
Decided On : 25-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian For Mr.K.Dinesh
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.P.Gunasekaran

Independent trials must proceed without stalling, even if related case and counter case exist; participation in advanced trials weakens claims for abeyance.

Headnote:(A) Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Petition seeking direction to keep trial abeyance until charge sheet is filed - Petitioner argued for simultaneous trial citing case and counter case - Court held ongoing trial in advanced stage cannot be stalled, emphasizing independent proceedings per Supreme Court directive - No demonstration of prejudice or miscarriage of justice found. (Paras 26 and 24)

(B) Pre-cognizance stage - Courts must screen inconsistent rival versions of incidents - Non-compliance with procedures at an advanced trial stage does not vitiate unless miscarriage of justice is shown. (Paras 55, 68 and 69

(B))

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in a criminal case for various offenses, sought to stall the trial in light of a related case and counter case, arguing both arose from a single incident regarding a land dispute. The Supreme Court previously mandated independent trials for the cases.

Findings of Court:
The court did not find merit in the petition to keep trial in abeyance, noting the advanced stage of proceedings and the previous Supreme Court ruling mandating independent trials without delay.

Issues: The court examined whether the trial could be paused pending a charge sheet in a related case, considering the implications of simultaneous trials for cases stemming from an incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the ongoing trial must proceed independently as per the Supreme Court's guidance, and participation in trial activities by the petitioner undermines the request to stall proceedings.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of complaints and firs (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. parties argue for simultaneous trial process (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. court assesses legal implications of trials (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23)
4. guidance on trial conduct for case/counter case (Para 21)
5. conclusion dismissing the petition (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

ORDER :

R.Vijayakumar, J.

The present petition has been filed seeking to issue a direction to the trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Judge (PCR Act) Cases, Madurai to keep the trial in abeyance until the third respondent files F.I.R and charge sheet as per order of this Court in Crl.OP(MD).Nos.10189, 10201, 10249, 10882 and 11577 of 2025 dated 28.11.2025.

(A).Facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

2.A criminal case was registered as against the petitioner in Crime No. 39 of 2020 on the file of the Melavalavu Police Station, Madurai District on 24.02.2020 wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 along with four other named accused persons. The said F.I.R was registered on the complaint given by the third respondent namely Lakshmanan. The said F.I.R was registered for the offences under Section 147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 379 of I.P.C read with Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015.

3.A perusal of the above said F.I.R reveals that the petitioner and others are said to have attacked the defacto complainant at about 17.30 hours on 24.02.2020 with regard to a land dispute. One Suresh had sustained serious injuries in the said alleged incident. The F.I.R was registered at about 21.15 hours by recording the statement of the third respondent herein in the hospital. The said F.I.R after investigation has culminated in filing of the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 and pending trial on the file of the III Additional District Court (PCR Act) cases, madurai.

4.On the same date of occurrence at about 5.30 p.m, the present petitioner herein ( arrayed as A1 in Crime No.39 of 2020) had alleged that the father of the defacto complainant in Crime No.39 of 2020 and 12 others including one Suresh had trespassed into his property and destroyed the papayas trees and saplings. The petitioner herein had lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station on 26.02.2020 for which CSR receipt was issued in CSR.No.103 of 2020. However, CSR was later closed by the police officials on the ground that the parties could not be contacted and CSR remained pending beyond six months. Later the petitioner herein had filed Crl.M.P.No.4339 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C seeking a direction as against the police for registration of F.I.R. An order came to be passed by the Judicial Magistrate on 12.07.2024 to conduct an enquiry and register an F.I.R, if any cognizable offence is made out. The concerned police conducted an enquiry and filed a closure report.

5.The petitioner herein had filed Crl.M.P.No.4054 of 2024 as a protest petition. Since there was no progress in the protest petition, the petitioner had prepared Crl.O.P(MD).No.11577 of 2025 seeking a direction to expedite the disposal of the complaint. This Court by an order dated 28.11.2025 had transferred the investigation to CBCID for fresh complaint and closed Crl.M.P.No.4054 of 2024 which was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur. Thereafter, the investigation got transferred to CBCID Madurai Rural and an F.I.R came to be registered in Crime No.1 of 2026 on 19.01.2026 as against the third respondent's father Kusalavan and 12 others for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Investigation is still pending.

6. In the meantime, one of the prime witnesses in Crime No.39 of 2020 namely Suresh was murdered and an F.I.R came to be registered in Crime No. 202 of 2022 on 18.12.2022. In the said F.I.R, the p

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