[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Balasubramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 2026
Crl.A.(MD).No.167 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 25.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A(MD)No.167 of 2026
Balasubramanian ...Appellant/
Accused No.10
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi South Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
(Crime No.533 of 2019) ... Respondent/
Complainant
2. P.Ramkumar ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-(A)(1) of SC & ST
Act, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the
learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi
in Crl.M.P.No.294 of 2025 in S.C.No.62 of 2020 and set aside the same.
For appellant : Mr.K.K.Samy
For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mrs.Seeni Syed Amma for
M/s Roy and Roy associates
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.167 of 2026
JUDGMENT
Accused No.10 has filed the criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.167 of
2026 under section 14-A (1) of SC and ST (POA) Act, challenging the dismissal
of discharge petition vide impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.294 of 2025 in S.C.No.
62 of 2020 on the file of Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi, dated 12.01.2026.
2. According to the prosecution, deceased P.K.Sivakumar was one of the
brother of the defacto complainant and he had another brother namely,
P.K.Muthukumar. Earlier, on 21.08.2019, his brother, namely, P.K.Sivakumar
was murdered by a mob opposite to the District Court campus in the presence of
the deceased P.K.Muthkumar and defacto complainant. Hence, complaint was
made and on receipt of the complaint, Thoothukudi South Police officials
registered the case in Crime No.533 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 341,
294(b), 302, 506(2), 120–B, 34, 109 of IPC r/w. Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST(POA)
Act. Thereafter final report was filed against the petitioner and other 20 accused
persons and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.62 of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
3.Pending the trial, in the said case deceased P.K.Muthukumar and another
brother namely, the second respondent Ramkumar were persistently taking steps
to intervene in the bail application filed by the all the accused. The same
infuriated and provoked the appellant herein to eliminate the deceased
Muthukumar as he was hurdle to them for getting bail. Therefore, appellant and
other accused in the earlier case conspired to commit murder of said
Muthukumar and infurtherence of the conspiracy on 22.02.2023 at 2.15 p.m.
Accused No.1 in the case wearing helmet along with identifiable four persons
wielding aruval, lathi trespassed into the pawn shop owned by the deceased
Muthukumar and another identifiable person accused came in a motor cycle and
they fled away from the scene of the occurrence. Thereafter, FIR was registered
by the SIPCOT Police Station in Crime No.48 of 2023 upon receipt of the
complaint from the second respondent, namely, defacto complainant. They
registered the case for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302, and 109
IPC r/w. Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The investigating officer
conducted investigation and filed the final report against the appellant and other
accused on 14.11.2019 totally 21 accused persons. The appellant and the other
accused persons had filed discharge petition in Cr.M.P.No.293 of 2025 to
discharge them in S.C.No.62 of 2020 on the ground that the final report was filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police without jurisdiction and also beyond
sixty days period mentioned in the Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 as amended in the
year 2016 (herein after called as “Rules”). The learned trial Judge vide impugned
order dated 12.01.2026 dismissed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the
appellant has preferred the above Criminal Appeal before this court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there
has been violation of Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 2016, as the Investigating
Officer has filed the final report beyond the prescribed period of 60 days.
According to the learned counsel, once the final report is filed beyond the
statutory period prescribed under the special enactment, the Special Court has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of such a defective and belated final report.
Therefore, the appellant/petitioners filed a discharge petition before the learned
Special Judge, which came to be dismissed erroneously without properly
considering the mandatory requirement under Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the Rules.
Hence, the appellant/petitioners seek interference of this Court, contending that
the impugned order suffers from illegality and non-application of mind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
5. In support of his contentions the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47 reported in (Madhu
Limaya Vs.State of Maharashtra.
(ii) In the judgment of High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition No.638 and 550 of
2016 (Premalatha Divakar Vs. the State of Karnataka and
others and State of Karnataka Vs. Shreemad Jagadguru
Shankaracharya)
(iii) AIR 2021 Supreme Court 2351 reported in
Criminal Appeal No.472 of 2021 (Sanjay Kumar Rai V.State
of Uttar Pradesh and another) and
(iv) (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 577 reported in
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Babbu Rathore and another)
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
present case involves a grave offence of conspiracy and murder. During the
course of investigation, the involvement of the accused persons came to light
periodically, upon the arrest and interrogation of the co-accused. Therefore, the
investigation was carried out in a systematic and meaningful manner by a
competent officer, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in consonance
with the object and spirit of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
7. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the final report was neither
intentional nor deliberate, but it occasioned due to the complexities involved in
unearthing the conspiracy and collecting incriminating materials against the
accused. The delay has also been duly explained in accordance with law. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that mere delay in filing the final
report cannot be a ground to discharge the accused, particularly in serious
offences involving members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In
support of his submission, he relied upon the following precedents of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) In the case of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta vs.
B.Srinivas reported in 2008 (8) SCC 580
(ii) In the case of Narendra Kumar Amin vs. Central Beureau of
Investigation and others reported in 2015 (3) SCC 417
8.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant reiterated the
submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and further submitted
that even though this Court issued a direction on 11.10.2023 in Crl.A.(MD).No.
494 of 2023, to complete the trial in jail premises and complete the trial within a
period of two months, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P.Crl.No.422 of 2024, the appellant without co-operating for the trial by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
participating in the trial process, along with other accused persons had filed
petition after petition and caused obstruction to trial. They not even allowed the
learned judge to frame the charges and also intentionally refused to receive the
copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. One after another has filed the petition to
discharge from the case. Therefore, the accused not only adopted dilatory tactics
to prolong the trial and also demoralised the witnesses. This court called for the
reports from the learned trial Judge, about the case of the trial in the bail
application filed by the accused Sundersan in the second round in Crl.A.
(MD).No.429 of 2025 and posted the case for further hearing. At this stage, the
accused has filed this appeal and the Hon'ble Judge hearing the case directed all
the above appeals to be placed before this Court on the ground that this Court
already was seized of the matter. The learned counsel sought to dismiss the
petition and allow to proceed with the trial with further necessary directions.
9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on
either side and perused the materials available on record.
10. The primary question that arises for consideration in this revision is
whether the final report, filed beyond the period of sixty days as contemplated
under Rule 7(2), and that too without a written explanation by the Investigating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Officer as required under Rule 7(2-A), vitiates and renders the cognizance taken
by the Special Court invalid and consequently, whether the accused's plea for
discharge is legally sustainable.
11.For better appreciation of the above question it is relevant to extract the
Rule 7 hereunder:
Rule 7(1) An offence committed under the Act shall be
investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be
appointed by the State Government, Director–General of Police,
Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past
experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications
of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the
shortest possible time.
(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub–rule (1)
shall complete the investigation on top priority and submit the report
to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn will immediately
forward the report to the Director–General of Police or
Commissioner of Police of the State Government, and the officer–
in–charge of the concerned police station shall file the charge–sheet
in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period
of sixty days (the period is inclusive of investigation and filing of
charge– sheet.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
(2A) The delay, if any, in investigation or filing of charge–sheet
in accordance with sub–rule (2) shall be explained in writing by the
investigating officer.
(3)The Secretary, Home Department and the Secretary,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department
(the name of the Department may vary from State to State) to the
State Government or Union Territory Administration, Director of
Prosecution, the officer–in–charge of Prosecution and the Director–
General of Police or Commissioner of Police in–charge of the
concerned State or Union Territory shall review by the end of every
quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating
officer.
12.The above Rule directs the investigating officer to file the final report
within a period of sixty days and in the event of failure, he must give written
explanation. If case of failure of giving written explanation, the victim is entitled
to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 4 of the Act against the
investigating officer. Therefore, In this aspect, Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the
SC/ST Rules must be interpreted in accordance with the object of the Act. The
amendment to the Rules 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the Act was brought in the year 2016
with inclusion of Rule (2-A). Before amendment, there was no duty cast upon
the Investigating Officer to explain the delay in writing. The Rule and the
provisions in Section 4 and the various provisions of Cr.P.C., has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
harmoniously interpreted without making the object of the Act otiose. The
amended provision of 2016 in both Section 4 and Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) is victim
centric and they aimed to complete the investigation in order to safeguard the
interest of the witnesses and to protect the witnesses from tampering and the
possible erosion of evidence due to their vulnerability.
13. It is a well-settled principle of law that delay in filing the final report,
by itself, is not a ground to quash the proceedings or discharge the accused. The
time limit prescribed for completion of investigation primarily enables the
accused to claim statutory bail, but it does not automatically render the
investigation illegal or invalidate the final report filed thereafter.
14.It is also relevant to note that the present case involves grave and
serious offences, including murder committed in a public place near the court
premises, and further allegations of conspiracy involving multiple accused
persons., as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
investigation progressed in stages, with the arrest of the accused persons at
different points of time. The Investigating Officer examined several witnesses
and collected incriminating materials in a fair and proper manner. Therefore,
gravity of the offence and the surrounding circumstances warranted fair
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
investigation. The investigation in a murder case involving criminal conspiracy
by so many persons cannot be said be an easy affair to be probed within a short
span of time.
15.Therefore, the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in 2017 14 SCC
304 in the case of the challenge of the investigation by the Sub-Inspector of
Police as against the Rule has held that it cannot be accepted without proving
miscarriage of justice and serious prejudice as per Section 465 of Cr.P.C. Here
the question of non submission of written explanation for the delay has to be
assessed at the time of the trial in consonance with the established procedure.
Further, looking from the other angle, punishment for Section 3 (V) of the Act, is
life imprisonment and punishment for the other major offence 302 IPC is life
imprisonment or death and in the said circumstances, as per 173 Cr.P.C., and 167
Cr.P.C, limitation for filing the final report is 90 days. In default, the only benefit
accrued to the accused is the benefit of statutory bail. Except that there is no
question of entitlement of quashment or discharge from the case and the same
was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments on different
angle including the case of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Vs.
B.Srinivas reported in 2008 8 SCC 580 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
mere delay in conclusion of the investigation of the case is not a ground to quash
the FIR and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as follows:-
10.There is no general and wide proposition of law formulated
that whenever there is delay on the part of the investigating
agency in completing the investigation, such a delay can be a
ground for quashing the FIR. It would be difficult to formulate
inflexible guidelines or rigid principles in determining as to
whether the accused has been deprived of fair trial on account of
delay or protracted investigation; it would depend on various
factors including whether such a delay was reasonably long or
caused deliberately or intentionally to hamper the defence of the
accused or whether the delay was inevitable in the nature of things
or whether it was due to dilatory tactics adopted by the accused. It
would depend upon certain peculiar facts and circumstances of
each case i.e. the volume of evidence collected by the investigating
agency, the nature and gravity of the offence for which the accused
has been charge-sheeted in a given case. The nexus between whole
and some of the above factors is of considerable relevance.
Therefore, whether the accused has been deprived of fair trial on
account of protracted investigation has to come on facts. He has
also to establish that he had no role in the delay. Every delay does
not necessarily occur because of the accused.
16.In this case, occurrence took place on 21.08.2019 and final report was
filed on 14.11.2019. Hence, the final report was filed with a delay of 26 days
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
beyond the period fixed as per Rule 7(2-A). During investigation 21 accused
were arrested and 56 witnesses have been examined. 9 Expert witnesses were
examined and 21 Eye witnesses were examined and confessions of may accused
were recorded and incriminating materials were recovered at their disclosure on
various dates. Therefore, this Court finds no intentional lapse on the part of the
investigating officer causing prejudice to the accused. Hence, this Court holds
that the prayer to discharge the accused on the ground that the investigating
officer has filed final report beyond the period of sixty days as stated in the Rule
7(2-A) is misconceived one. The main SC/ST Act, did not prescribe any time
limit to complete the investigation. The time limit not be predicted to complete
the investigation. Therefore, the legislators in their wisdom did not fix the outer
limit but imposed the statutory duty on the investigating officer in all fairness to
complete the investigation within a period of sixty days and to impose the further
duty directed to submit the written explanation for the delay of more than sixty
days. This does not create any right on the accused to seek discharge.
17.As per Cr.P.C., and the final report has been filed under Section 173 of
Cr.P.C., the offence punishable for more than a period of three years there is no
question of application of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. On this reasoning also, this
Court finds no merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
appellant to discharge the accused on the ground that the investigating officer
filed the final report beyond the period of sixty days without written explanation
and the question of filing final report without written explanation is a fact that
has to be decided at the time of the trial during the course of the examination of
the investigating officer and it is open to the accused to raise before the trial
Court and establish prejudice and failure of justice. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as stated above clearly stated that the final report is not defective for non
filing some of the document. Looking from other angle, lapse on the part of the
investigating officer whether intentional or unintentional is not a ground to
discharge the accused. Therefore, filing of final report within ninety days in the
specific case of murder borne out of the organised conspiracy cannot be faulted
and hence, this Court is inclined to dismiss the criminal appeal.
18. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners
are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present
case. The Course of the investigation depend upon the certain peculiar
circumstances of the each case. The same also depend upon the gravity of the
offence. More particularly, in the case of criminal conspiracy, time lapse between
the arrest of the one accused and the other accused has to be considered.
Therefore, in this case, as rightly pointed by the learned Additional Public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Prosecutor, 21 accused were arrested and the connecting materials were collected
and therefore, time lapse to file the final report beyond 60 days cannot be put
against the Investigating Officer and said delay is not a ground to discharge the
accused from the grave charge of murder of the deceased belonging to the
vulnerable Section of schedule caste, opposite to the District Court premises. At
this stage, it is relevant to note that circumspect approach has to be made in the
case of the offence under the SC/ST Act, to protect the Vulnerable Section of the
society in consonance with express constitutional safeguards enumerated in
Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution and the relevant paragraph of the
Hon'ble three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P.
reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635, extracted hereunder:
“16. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of
special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be
extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been
specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and
harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. The SC/ST Act is also a recognition of the depressing
reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various
atrocities at the hands of upper castes. The Courts have to be
mindful of the fact that the SC/ST Act has been enacted keeping
in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in
Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable
communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the
victims of caste-based atrocities.
Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
19. This Court also perused the report submitted by the learned trial Judge
and also considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor about the
conduct of majority of the accused to file petition after petition exceeding 150 in
numbers to protract the trial without allowing the trial Court to move an inch of
trial despite the direction issued by this Court in Crl.A.(MD).No.494 of 2023
which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Crl.No.422 of 2024
and holds that the conduct of the accused in adopting dilatory tactics to protract
the trial proceedings is not appreciable.
20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit
in the present Criminal Appeal. The Criminal appeal is misconceived and devoid
of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
21. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. However,
considering the gravity of the offence and the prolonged delay in trial, this Court
issues the following directions:
(i) The learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the trial on a day-to-
day basis and complete the trial within a period of two months from today
without granting unnecessary adjournments.
(ii)This Court hereby directs all the accused to extend their full co-
operation for the expeditious completion of the trial.
(ii)The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge is directed not to
assign any additional judicial work to the learned trial Judge concerned until the
completion of trial in the present case, so as to enable the trial Judge to devote
full time and full attention for expeditious disposal of the trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
22. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Appeal
stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
25.02.2026
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
ebsi/sbn
Note: Issue order copy on 25.02.2026
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi South Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi Rural,
Sipcot Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Special Judge,
Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act,
Thoothukudi.
4.The Principal District Judge,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ebsi/sbn
and
25.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
