top of page

Directions to expedite trial in a particular case must be passed only for extremely compelling reasons

Directions to expedite trial in a particular case must be passed only for extremely compelling reasons

M Gopalakrishnan Vs Pasumpon Muthuramalingam

Supreme Court


SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 30839/2021

About/from the judgment:

The Supreme Court has observed when petitions seeking directions to trial court to expedite the trial are filed before the higher courts, the same need to be examined from all angles.

The Court made this observation while considering a SLP against Madras High Court's order of directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and close the trial within 6 months.

While dismissing the SLP, the bench in their order said,

"Looking to the nature of the order passed by the High Court, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this matter but feel impelled to observe that ordinarily, before passing any such order for expeditious proceedings in a particular case (which might appear to be rather of innocuous nature), it would be appropriate for the higher Court to appreciate that any such order for one case, without cogent and extremely compelling reasons, might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court; might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court; and progression of such other cases might suffer for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein.

Moreover, such petitions, even when moved before the higher Court, need to be examined from all angles."

The petition was filed by the Complainant seeking directions to the Trial Court to expedite the trial within stipulated time before the High Court without even joining the accused persons as parties.

It was argued before the High Court that the crime was of the year 2016 and the final report was also filed in the year 2017 but even after a lapse of four years, there was no progress in the trial.

The High Court had passed the impugned order while being not informed of the other relevant facts, including pendency of the revision petitions in the same High Court, as filed by the accused.

Aggrieved, the accused had approached the Top Court assailing the High Court's order on the ground that he was not made a party in the petition filed before the High Court by the complainant and was never heard by the High Court. It was also his contention that various petitions were filed against the order declining discharge, including Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 214 of 2021, were pending in the High Court.

Read the Judgment


Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

bottom of page