1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P(MD)No.15269 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Arunachalaselvi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District. Crime No.6 of 2006 2.R.Thangam 3.Anbumani 4.Jegadeesh ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District to expedite the trial in C.C.No.6 of 2007 pending on its file and to complete the trial within the period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :: M/s.Ananth C.Rajesh For R - 1 :: Mr.P.Kannithevan Govt. Advocate (Crl. side) For R - 2 to R - 4 :: No Appearance O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District to expedite the trial in C.C.No.6 of 2007 pending on its file and to complete the trial within the period stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard M/s.Ananth C.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent/State. No representation for respondents 2 to 4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the case has been registered by the first respondent police on the complaint given by the petitioner and charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.6 of 2007 and the trial has been commenced and the prosecution witnesses have been completed. He would further submit that the case was posted for questioning of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. But in the meantime, the first accued viz., the second respondent had absconded and therefore, it is kept pending https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 without any progress. Therefore, he requests this Court that suitable direction may be given to the trial Court to execute the non bailable warrant and to continue the case and to dispose of the same within a short span of time. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the respondent police is taking steps to nab the second respondent/first accused on the non bailable warrant and one month time may be granted to execute the non bailable warrant and thereafter, suitable time limit may be given for completion of the trial. He would further submit that the second respondent is residing at Madras and therefore, in an outer limit of four months period, the case could be completed. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the evidence on the side of the prosecution have been completed already and it is pending for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and at that time, the first accused/second respondent had absconded and non bailable warrant has been issued against him. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would request the Court that within in one month time, the non bailable would be executed and within four months time, the trial could be completed. 6. In the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant four months time for completion of the trial, after executing the non bailable warrant against the first accused/second respondent and both the parties are directed to co-operate with the learned Judicial Magistrate for the disposal of the case. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is ordered. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. vsm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. 2.Do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15269 of 2011 Dated:07.12.2011 2P/5C RPB : 13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/