1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1388 of 2011 Rengan ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Inspector of Police Eraniel Police Station ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the learned Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, for speedy disposal of the case pending in C.C.No. 303 of 2003 on its file. For Petitioners : Mr. J. John Jayakumar For Respondent : Mr. L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Petition has been filed by the petitioners to direct the learned Principal District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, for speedy disposal of the case pending in C.C.No. 303 of 2003 on its file. 2. Heard Mr. J. John Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No. 303 of 2003 under Section 304-A of IPC. He would further submit in his argument that on the side of the prosecution, two named witnesses were examined as PWS 1 & 2 as eye witnesses on 12.11.2008, but they turned as hostile witnesses and after that, no progress was made on the side of the prosecution. He would further submit in his argument that the case registered against the petitioner is a summons case and he has been facing the prosecution from the year 2003. Therefore, he would request the Court to direct speedy disposal of the case. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that on the side of the prosecution, two named https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 witnesses have been examined, but, they turned hostile. The respondent is ready to produce further witnesses and complete the trial. Therefore, he would request the Court that suitable orders may be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that on the side of the prosecution, two named witnesses were examined as PWS 1 & 2 as eye witnesses on 12.11.2008, but they turned as hostile and after that, no progress on the side of the prosecution and the petitioner is facing trial from the year 2003. Therefore, this Court is inclined to directed the learned Principal District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, to examine further witnesses in the case in C.C.No. 300 of 2003 and to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District 2. The Inspector of Police Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai vsg ssk/22.02.2011 /4c -2p/- Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1388 of 2011 04.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/