Seetha v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Seetha ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gingee, Villupuram District.

(Crime No.29 of 2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial and dispose of the case in S.C.No.28 of 2023 on the file the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamalesh for Mr.T.Maha Vishnu For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of S.C.No.28 of 2023 pending on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram, within a stipulated time.

1/5

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on the complaint given by the petitioner/de facto complainant against one Silambarasan, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2022 on 29.08.2022, for the offences under Sections 417, 376(2)(n), 342, 450, 294(b) and 506(I) of IPC. He further submitted that even after the case was taken cognizance by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram, in S.C.No.28 of 2023 on 09.02.2023, the trial is still pending and there is no progress. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 3.

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that six witnesses out of sixteen witnesses were examined in this case and that the case now stands posted 27.01.2026 for examination of witnesses.

4.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5.

It is pertinent to state that a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, has held that the constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a 2/5

time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other court. The relevant portion of the said decision for the sake of ready reference is reproduced below:

"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." (emphasis supplied by this Court).

6.

It has also been held in the aforesaid extracted portion that in exceptional circumstances, constitutional courts may issue directions for time bound disposal of cases.

7.

Considering that six out of sixteen witnesses have been examined and the case is pending from the year 2023 and these being exceptional circumstances, this Court directs the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, to dispose of the case in S.C.No.28 of 2023, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing i.e., on 27.01.2026.

3/5

8.

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

20.01.2026 ham To 1.

The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram.

2.

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gingee, Villupuram District.

3.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

ham 20.01.2026 5/5