Madras High Court
Thiyagarajan vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police on 6 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.3104 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P.No.3104 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.1765 of 2021
Thiyagarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep.by Inspector of Police
Vellavedu Police Station
Tiruvallur District.
2.Elcomponics Sales Pvt Ltd
Rep.by V.Sudharshanan
No.504/ib, Padur Main Road
Irulapalayam Village
Kuthambakkam Post
Thiruvallor – 600 124. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records and quash the First Information Report registered in
FIR No.2558 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent
as against the petitioner.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3104 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sridhar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran, for R1
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to call for the
records and quash the First Information Report registered in FIR No.2558 of
2020 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent as against the
petitioner.
2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
investigation in this matter has already been over and the charge sheet was
filed on 21.02.2021 and the trial Court has not taken the case on file.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
investigation has been done and the stay was pending. But the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3104 of 2021
Ltd. and Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [AIR 2018 SC 2039], the
Courts cannot keep on extending the stay beyond six months, unless, the
petition filed to stay is disposed on merits and an order of stay is granted. The
relevant portions in the above judgment are extracted hereunder:
“35. In view of above, situation of proceedings
remaining pending for long on account of stay needs
to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for
corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases
where on account of stay, civil and criminal
proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are
adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after
stay is vacated, intimation is not received and
proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to
remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to
direct that in all pending cases where stay against
proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating,
the same will come to an end on expiry of six months
from today unless in an exceptional case by a
speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where
stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry
of six months from the date of such order unless
similar extension is granted by a speaking order.
The speaking order must show that the case was of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3104 of 2021
such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was
more important than having the trial finalized. The
trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal
proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond
six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of
period of stay, proceedings can commence unless
order of extension of stay is produced.
36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order
framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order
nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is
not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be
it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227
of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is
to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy
to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the
same being in any manner hampered. Thus
considered, the challenge to an order of charge
should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to
correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-
appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is
entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be
decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not
operate for an unduly long period. Though no
mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3104 of 2021
not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains
pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed
six months, unless extension is granted by a specific
speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of
speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as
other cases where at trial stage proceedings are
stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a
court below the High Court, as the case may be. In
all pending matters before the High Courts or other
courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or
criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a
pending trial is operating, stay will automatically
lapse after six months from today unless extended by
a speaking order on above parameters. Same course
may also be adopted by civil and criminal
appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of
the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of
above period, resume the proceedings without
waiting for any other intimation unless express
order extending stay is produced.
37. The High Courts may also issue
instructions to this effect and monitor the same so
that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain
pending for unduly period at the trial stage.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3104 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
ssr
4.In view of the above judgment, the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be helpful for the situation that has arisen
now.
5.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as
infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No 06.09.2022
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
ssr
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Vellavedu Police Station
Tiruvallur District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.3104 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.1765 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
