Karthic R v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.Nos.1082 & 1083 of 2026 Karthic R ... Petitioner Vs.
1.
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, C-4, RGGGH Police Station, Chennai - 600 003. (Crime No.12 of 2025) 2.
The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Medical College and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai - 600 003.
... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.1725 of 2025, on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Parthipan For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/7
O R D E R
The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1725 of 2025 pending on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. 2.
Based on the complaint given by the second respondent/de facto complainant, alleging that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal possession of narcotic substances, namely Ketamime injection, Phenylephrine and small quantity of Ganja, in their hostel room, a case in Crime No.12 of 2025 was registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(a) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After completion of the investigation, the final report was filed before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No. 1725 of 2025, which is now sought to be quashed.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is arrayed as A5 and is facing trial in C.C.No. 1725 of 2025, is an MBBS graduate and that while he was undergoing his 2/7
internship, the alleged contraband was placed in his room by some other students, without his knowledge and therefore, he was made as a scapegoat. He further submitted that there is no substantive evidence to prove the case against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
4.
Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent police submitted that the contraband was recovered during the search conducted in the hostel and that the contraband was also recovered from the petitioner's room. He further submitted that where there is a substantive evidence or not is a matter for trial and therefore, the petitioner has to face the trial.
5.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and also made an endorsement to that effect. He further sought the indulgence of this Court, stating that, due to the pendency of the present case, the petitioner is unable to enroll before the Medical Council of Tamil Nadu, and therefore, requested this Court to issue a direction to the trial Court to complete the trial within a stipulated time and also to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court. 3/7
6.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 7.
In view of the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner qua withdrawal, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
8.
However, considering the fact that the petitioner is an MBBS graduate and that the pendency of the criminal proceedings is stated to be a hindrance for his enrollment before the Medical Council, this Court directs the learned Magistrate to take into consideration the above facts and make every endeavour to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the next hearing date. 9.
While doing so, this Court is cognizant of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2024) 6 4/7
SCC 267, wherein it has been held that the constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other court. It has also been observed that, in exceptional circumstances, constitutional courts may issue directions for time bound disposal of cases. 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).
10. Further, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for the receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., passing of judgment, or any other date as may be required by the trial Court. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be duly represented by his counsel before the trial Court.
29.01.2026 ham 5/7
To 1.
The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
2.
The Inspector of Police, C-4, RGGGH Police Station, Chennai - 600 003.
3.
The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Medical College and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai - 600 003 4.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
6/7
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
ham and Crl.M.P.Nos.1082 & 1083 of 2026 29.01.2026 7/7