J. Mahonram v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.OP(MD)No.11480 of 2025 J.Mohanram ... Petitioner versus

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul.

2. Vetrichelvi

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, to conduct the trial in C.C.No.145 of 2019 in an expeditious manner and conclude the same within a time frame of one month.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.William Christopher For R1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who is the accused No.2 in C.C.No.145 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, has filed this petition that the respondent Police and the trial Court has not shown any 1/5

interest in prosecuting the case which has been filed as against him in C.C.No.145 of 2019.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the final report was filed in the year 2019, the respondent Police has not shown any interest in prosecuting the case and the trial Court is also simply adjourning the matter. Therefore, the petitioner/accused has moved this petition seeking a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial in C.C.No.145 of 2019 within a stipulated time.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the trial has already commenced and sofar, 11 witnesses have been examined. He further submits that the petitioner has never appeared before the trial Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the same and submits that the petitioner was in prison and the Superintendent of Police has also instructed him not to enter into the Dindigul District.

5. It is also reported by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 2/5

that the petitioner is having 16 cases to his credit, out of which, seven cases are relating to the offence under Section 302 IPC and six cases are relating to the offence under the Arms Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of seven cases, five cases have ended in acquittal and two cases are now pending.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions made.

8. The petitioner, who has not appeared before the trial Court, is making an allegation as against the trial Court and the respondent police that they are not proceeding with the trial in C.C.No.145 of 2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the Superintendent of Police has instructed the petitioner not to enter into the Dindigul District. It is not known as to whether the Superintendent of Police has issued such a direction to the petitioner. Further, this Court is unable to understand as to how the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, is condoning the petitioner's absence for several hearings.

3/5

10. Considering the fact that the case in C.C.No.145 of 2019 is of the year 2019, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) the trial Court shall insist for the appearance of the petitioner; (ii) since the petitioner is having several cases to his credit, the trial Court shall scrutinize the witnesses in a careful manner; (iii) the trial Court shall conclude the trial in C.C.No.145 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

08.07.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes ogy To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy Crl.OP(MD)No.11480 of 2025 08.07.2025 5/5