Crl.O.P.NOs.

16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

21/07 /2025 Crl.O.P.No.16882 of 2025

31/07 /2025 Crl.O.P.No.21404 of 2025
and and
Reserved on Crl.O.P.No.18139 of 2025
25/07/ 2025 Crl.O.P.No. 20852 of 2025

Delivered on 01 / 08 / 2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Crl.O.P.Nos.16882 & 21404 of 2025

and
Crl.O.P.Nos.18139 & 20852 of 2025

Crl.O.P.No.16882 of 2025

A.Paulraj ... Petitioner

Vs.
State by,
The Inspector of Police,
K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
Chennai District. ... Respondent
(Crime No.359 of 2022)

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, to
direct the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore to take on the file the
charge sheet filed by the respondent Police on 10.02.2024 in E-filing
No.C202400037 within a time frame manner.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Balamanikandan

For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
***

1/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

Crl.O.P.No.21404 of 2025

M.Manikandan ... Petitioner

Vs.
State by,
The Inspector of Police,
CCB Police Station,
Tambaram. ... Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, to
direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram to take on the file the
charge sheet filed by the respondent Police on 11.05.2024 within the
stipulated time fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ravindra Ram

For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
***

Crl.O.P.No.18139 of 2025

Jamuna Sivalingam ... Petitioner

Vs.
1. State by,
The Inspector of Police (Law and Order),
J-8, Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai.

2.Mr.V.Rajarajacholan ... Respondents

2/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, to
direct the first respondent to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Allikulam against the second
respondent in S.T.C.No.9639 of 2024, dated 18.12.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.N.Naresh Kumar

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

***

Crl.O.P.No.20852 of 2025

S.Senthilvel ... Petitioner

Vs.
1. The State Represented by:
The Inspector of Police,
H-8 Police Station,
Nagamalai, Pudukottai.
Madurai District.

2.K.Nagendiran ... Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, to
direct the first respondent to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against
the second respondent herein in S.T.C.No.914 of 2018, pending on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Samratt

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

3/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

This Court, with deep regret, is constrained to

state that when police and judicial authorities act

arbitrarily and fail to adhere to the rule of law,

including binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and the circulars issued by this Court, such

conduct is not merely unlawful but reflects a serious

erosion of institutional discipline and respect for

judicial norms. It not only undermines public

confidence in the justice delivery system but also

sends a dangerous signal to the accused, enabling

them to evade due process, while causing serious

hardship to the complainant.

2. In this backdrop, considering the serious lapses noted, and since the

issues raised in these matters involve similar shortcomings requiring common

consideration, all the petitions are taken up together and are being disposed

of by this common order, by outlining the relevant circumstances and

procedural failures in each of the following cases.

4/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

(i) Crl.O.P.Nos.16882 and 21404 of 2025 – These

petitions have been filed seeking (i) a direction to the learned

V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to take on file the

charge sheet filed by the respondent police on 10.02.2024

through the e-filing portal; and (ii) a direction to the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, to take on file the final

report filed by the respondent police on 11.05.2024. Although

a considerable period has elapsed since the filing of the said

charge sheets, they have not yet been taken on file by the

respective Magistrates.

(ii) Crl.O.P.Nos.18139 and 20852 of 2025 – These

petitions seek a direction for the execution of the Non-Bailable

Warrants issued by the learned Magistrate, which have

remained unexecuted for a considerable period despite

repeated opportunities.

3. A brief narration of the facts in each of the Criminal Original

Petitions is set out below:

3.1. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16882 of 2025 is the State President

of Tamil Nadu HIV Ullor Koottamaippu, an association engaged in

implementing welfare schemes for HIV-affected persons across Tamil Nadu.

5/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

Based on a complaint lodged by the petitioner alleging cheating to the tune of

Rs.14,00,000/- by certain individuals under the guise of arranging project

funds, an FIR in Crime No.359 of 2022 was registered by the respondent

police for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Subsequently, this Court, by

order dated 10.08.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.17877 of 2023, directed the respondent

police to file a final report or closure report within three months. Thereafter,

on 23.02.2024, in Contempt Petition No.445 of 2024, it was submitted before

this Court that the final report had been filed before the learned

V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, on 10.02.2024 via E-Filing

No.C202400037. Recording the same, this Court directed the Magistrate to

act upon the report within four weeks. The grievance of the petitioner is that

even after the expiry of several months, the learned Magistrate has not taken

any steps to act upon the final report as directed. The petitioner also refers to

Rule 25(6) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, which mandates that the

final report shall not be returned even if defective, and that in the absence of

any defect, it shall be taken on file within three days from the date of receipt.

Hence, the present petition is filed, seeking appropriate direction to the

learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, to take on file the final report

dated 10.02.2024, filed in E-Filing No.C202400037, within a time frame as

may be fixed by this Court.

6/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

3.2. The petitioner has filed the petition in Crl.O.P.No.21404 of 2025

stating that he, along with 91 others, was allegedly cheated by one

Mr.Manalan, Proprietor of Renils Estate, who is accused of having collected a

total sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/- from the victims under the pretext of selling

DTCP-approved plots in Survey No.158, Koodalur Village, Chengalpattu.

Despite receiving the amount, the accused failed to purchase the promised

land and instead diverted the funds to acquire other properties. Based on the

complaint, FIR in Crime No.13 of 2023 was registered by the respondent

police at CCB, Tambaram. The accused was arrested and later released on

bail. Though the investigation was stated to be completed and a final report

was filed on 11.05.2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Tambaram, the same has not been taken on file for over a year. Left with no

effective remedy, the petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking a

direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate to take the final report on file and

proceed in accordance with law.

3.3. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18139 of 2025 has filed a complaint

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the second

respondent, V. Raja Rajacholan, in S.T.C.No.9639 of 2024, pending before the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Allikulam. By order

dated 18.12.2024, the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant

against the second respondent and directed the first respondent police to

7/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

execute the same. However, despite the lapse of considerable time and

repeated representations made by the petitioner, the warrant remains

unexecuted, and no effective steps have been taken by the first respondent.

The continued inaction of the police in executing the warrant raises serious

concern. Hence, this petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent

police to execute the non-bailable warrant issued by the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Allikulam, against the second respondent in

S.T.C.No.9639 of 2024, dated 18.12.2024.

3.4. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20852 of 2025 states that he had filed

a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in

S.T.C.No.914 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V,

Salem, against the second respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner had

paid a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- to the second respondent in 2017, and in

discharge of the said liability, the second respondent issued two cheques,

which, upon presentation, were dishonoured. After issuance of statutory

notice, the petitioner initiated proceedings and summons were served on the

second respondent. Though he appeared through counsel and filed a petition

under Section 317 CrPC, he subsequently failed to appear before the Court.

Consequently, the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant on

06.07.2018 for securing the presence of the second respondent. The

petitioner submitted that despite several representations, including a written

8/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

representation dated 18.10.2021, no steps have been taken by the first

respondent police to execute the said warrant. As a result, the case has

remained pending without progress for nearly seven years, causing grave

hardship to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking a

direction to the first respondent police to execute the non-bailable warrant

issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem, in S.T.C.No.914 of

2018 against the second respondent and produce him before the said Court

within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions

from the respondent Police, would submit as follows:

4.1. In Crl.O.P.No.16882 of 2025, Dr. C.E. Pratap, learned Government

Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, submitted that

the charge sheet was filed on 10.02.2024 through e-Filing No. C202400037;

however, the same has not yet been taken on file by the learned V

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

4.2. In Crl.O.P.No.21404 of 2025, Dr. C.E. Pratap, learned Government

Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, also submitted

that the charge sheet was filed on 11.05.2024; however, the same has not

been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.

9/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

4.3. In Crl.O.P.No.18139 of 2025, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police,

submitted that a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against the accused

on 20.01.2025, which remains unexecuted.

4.4 In Crl.O.P.No.20852 of 2025, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned

Government Advocate further submitted that a Non-Bailable Warrant was

issued against the accused on 06.08.2018, which has also not been executed

and is still pending.

5. This Court finds it pertinent to record that the present cases are not

isolated instances. On numerous occasions, this Court has also had to pass

directions in petitions where, despite the charge sheet being filed through the

prescribed e-filing system, the same was not taken on file by the respective

Magistrates for inordinately long periods. Similarly, Non-Bailable Warrants

issued by the Magistrates have remained unexecuted for several months or

even years, compelling the aggrieved parties or the prosecution to approach

this Court seeking directions for execution.

6. The State authorities often inform this Court that the charge sheet

has been filed; however, it is not taken on file by the concerned Magistrate.

Similarly, although non-bailable warrants have been issued, the authorities

10/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

merely state from time to time that steps are being taken for their execution.

Even though the State or police claim that necessary steps are being taken

such as filing charge sheets or executing non-bailable warrants in actual

practice, these steps are not effectively carried out unless the complainant or

aggrieved party repeatedly approaches the Court by filing petitions and

seeking directions

7. In order to ascertain the extent of pendency and procedural delays

in taking charge sheets on file, by order dated 12.06.2025 in

Crl.O.P.No.16882 of 2024, this Court directed the Registrar General of this

Court to file a report indicating the number of cases in which charge sheets

have been filed before the Magistrate Courts across the State of Tamil Nadu

but have not yet been taken on file by the respective Courts. At this juncture,

it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said order, which

reads as under:-

"2. Today, when the matter the was taken up for hearing, the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent-Police,
on instructions, submitted that after completion of investigation in Crime
No.359 of 2022, the respondent-Police filed the charge sheet on 10.02.2024
through e-filing vide No.C202400037 before the learned Vth Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

3. Even though the charge sheet was filed as early as 10.02.2024,

the case has still not been taken on file by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore. Had timely action been taken, the poor litigants would not have
been forced to approach this Court merely to get the case numbered. In
order to ascertain the extent of such delays and to issue appropriate
directions for ensuring speedy disposal in future, this Court requires accurate
data regarding the number of cases in which charge sheets have been filed
but not yet taken on file by the concerned Magistrate Courts.

11/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

4. Accordingly, the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, is directed

to file a report before this Court within a period of one month, i.e., on or
before 15.07.2025, indicating how many cases in the Magistrate Courts
across the State of Tamil Nadu were charge-sheeted but have not yet been
taken on file by the respective Courts.

Post the matter on 15.07.2025."

8. Likewise, by another order dated 01.07.2025 passed in

Crl.O.P.No.18139 of 2025, this Court, taking note of the pendency in

execution of Non-Bailable Warrants across the State of Tamil Nadu, directed

the Registrar General to file a report. The relevant portion of the said order is

extracted hereunder:

"2. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that in the case on hand,

the learned Magistrate issued Non-Bailable Warrant as against the second
respondent herein/accused on 20.01.2025. However, the respondent-Police
neither executed the warrant, nor filed any report before the learned
Magistrate, till date.

3. No doubt, this is not a first case, and numerous cases remain

pending at the stage of initiation of Non-Bailable Warrants. When once the
warrant has been issued by the Magistrates/Sessions Judge, the respondent-
Police ought to have executed the warrant, secure the accused and produced
the accused before the Court concerned within a stipulated time as
prescribed in the warrant or otherwise file a status report before the Court
concerned regarding the non-execution of warrant. Later, fresh warrant
ought to be issued by the Court concerned only at the request of parties.
However, the respondent-Police have no authority to keep the warrant
pending without any progress. Therefore, the Director General of Police,
Chennai and the Commissioner of Police, Chennai are hereby directed to file
a report as to how many cases are pending at the stage of execution of Non-
Bailable Warrants all over the State of Tamil Nadu, on or before 23.07.2025.

4. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras, is also hereby directed

to call for a status report from the Subordinate Courts, as to how many cases
are pending without executing the Non-Bailable Warrants and without filing
compliance reports, on or before 23.07.2025.

Post the matter under the caption ''For Filing Reports'' on

24.07.2025."

12/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

9. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record, including the

report submitted.

10. These Criminal Original Petitions involve two distinct categories of

issues, as already indicated, which are examined separately under the

following heads:-

11.1. Charge Sheet Not Taken on File

11.2. Non-Execution of Non-Bailable Warrants

11.1. Charge sheet not taken on file (Crl.O.P.Nos.16882 &

21404 of 2025):-

11.1(1) It is a matter of serious concern that, although the final reports

were filed as early as on 10.02.2024 and 11.05.2024 respectively, the same

have not yet been taken on file by the concerned Magistrates. As per Rule

25(6) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, the charge sheet shall be taken

on file within three days from the date of its receipt. At this juncture, it would

be apposite to refer to the said Rule, which reads as follows:-

"27.6. Final report filed by police / complaint filed by other

investigating agency shall not be returned even if they are defective. A
separate memorandum should be issued to rectify the defect. If the defects
are not rectified within three months, th court shall report the matter to the
Commissioner of Police/ Superintendent of Police, as the case may be. In the

13/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

absence of defects, the same shall be taken on file within three days from
the date of receipt."

Further, once a charge sheet or final report is filed by the police, it is

incumbent upon the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law either by

taking cognizance, directing further investigation, or returning the report for

rectification, as the case may be depending on the circumstances of the case.

In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand [Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of

2024, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2874 of 2023, decided on 12.03.2024],

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down as follows:

" When such a Police Report concludes that an offence appears to have
been committed by a particular person or persons, the Magistrate has three
options: (i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and
issue process, (ii) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of
Section 156 and require the police to make a further report, or (iii) he may
disagree with the report and discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. If
such Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed,
the Magistrate again has three options: (i) he may accept the report and drop
the proceedings, or (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence
and issue process, or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the
police under sub-section (3) of Section 156 .”

However, even after the final reports have been filed, the learned Magistrates

concerned have not acted upon them as mandated by law. Instead of

proceeding in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

14/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

and the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

matters are kept pending without taking the report on file, resulting in

avoidable delay and procedural stagnation.

11.1(2) The report dated 31.07.2025 filed by the Registrar General

shows a large difference between the number of charge sheets submitted and

the number that have been taken on file.

11.1(3) It is pertinent to note that this Court is not issuing such a

direction for the first time. On multiple earlier occasions, this Court has

categorically observed that once a final report (charge sheet) is filed by the

police, it must be taken on file by the Magistrate without delay or unnecessary

procedural hindrance. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the

order passed in Contempt Petition(MD)No.728 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022,

wherein this Court had already taken note of similar lapses and issued

appropriate directions.

3.Taking note of the submissions made by the Inspector General of

Police, South Zone, I issue the following directions:-
(I) As and when final reports are filed before the jurisdictional
Courts, the concerned Court clerk will acknowledge receipt of the same by
affixing seal with date and signature on the first page of the office copy of
the final report.
(II) If such receipt is not given by the Court clerk, the concerned IO
shall report to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District within
24 hours. The Superintendent of Police shall in turn bring the same to the
notice of the Principal District and Sessions Judge for remedial action.

15/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

(III) Section 25(6) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 mandates

that whenever final report is filed, even if it is defective, it shall not be
returned for any reason whatsoever. If this mandate is breached, the same
also shall be brought to the notice of the District Superintendent of Police by
the concerned IO.

In addition, this Court had also issued a circular in R.O.C.No.69701-

A/2022/F1, dated 13.07.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

"All the Judicial Magistrates in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union
Territory of Puducherry are hereby directed to take the final reports filed by
the Police concerned on file without returning the same.
All the Principal District Judges / Chief Judicial Magistrates shall
ensure that final reports in criminal cases are not returned for any reason.
Further, all Judicial Magistrates are directed to give proper acknowledgment
to the police concerned upon filing of the final reports.
All the Principal District Judges / Principal Judge / District Judge /
Chief Judge are directed to send a monthly report of those cases where final
reports are not filed within the statutory period, to the High Court, with a
copy marked to the Commissioner of Police / Superintendent of Police of the
District concerned.”
As the circular issued was not followed by certain individuals, the same was

referred to and incorporated in the subsequent order passed by this Court in

Contempt Petition No.728 of 2022, dated 30.08.2022 and the relevant portion

of that order is extracted below:

"5. My Lord, the Hon'ble Chief Justice issued circular vide

R.O.C.No.69701-A/2022/F1 dated 13.07.2022 directing all the Judicial
Magistrates in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puduchery to
take the final reports filed by the police concerned on file without returning
the same and all the Principal District Judges / Chief Judicial Magistrates to

16/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

ensure that the final reports in criminal cases are not returned for any
reason. Further all the Judicial Magistrates were directed to give proper
acknowledgement to the police concerned on filing final reports. His Lordship
Mr. Justice N.Sathish Kumar had also issued certain directions in this regard.
6. Today Shri.Asra Garg, I.P.S., appeared before me and filed his
status report. His labour is evident from the results. Due to his persistent
follow-up action during the last two months, as many as 64027 final reports
have been filed and duly acknowledged. This covers ten districts falling within
the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench. The status report filed by the I.G.
contains detailed statistics and facts and figures."

In spite of the repeated and specific directions issued by this Court, both in

the form of judicial orders and administrative circulars, to the effect that once

the final report is filed, it must be taken on file without unwarranted return or

delay, this Court continues to receive petitions from aggrieved parties stating

that final reports filed by the jurisdictional police are not being taken on file,

thereby necessitating intervention from this Court.

11.1(4) In the present case, the petitioner lodged a complaint alleging

that he was cheated of a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- by certain individuals under

the pretext of arranging project funding. However, as no FIR was registered,

the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2532 of 2022, which was allowed by order

dated 16.04.2022, and pursuant thereto, an FIR was registered in Crime

No.359 of 2022 for the offence under Section 420 IPC. As no further progress

was made in the investigation, the petitioner approached this Court once

again, and by order dated 10.08.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.17877 of 2023, this Court

17/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

directed the respondent police to file a final report or a closure report within a

period of three months. As the said direction was not complied with, the

petitioner was constrained to initiate contempt proceedings by filing Contempt

Petition No.445 of 2024. During the hearing held on 23.02.2024, it was

submitted that the final report had been filed before the learned V

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, on 10.02.2024, through E-Filing

No.C202400037. Taking note of the said submission, this Court directed the

learned Magistrate to act upon the report within a period of four weeks.

However, despite the lapse of several months, no action has been taken by

the learned Magistrate, and the report continues to remain unattended. The

petitioner has once again been compelled to approach this Court by filing the

present petition in Crl.O.P.No.16882 of 2025 seeking compliance with the

directions already issued. Likewise, the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 21404 of

2025 was also compelled to file the present petition seeking a direction to

take the charge sheet on file, which had already been filed before the

concerned Court by the respondent-Police through the online portal; however,

it has not been taken on file till date. Such delay, despite clear and specific

judicial directions, reflects a lack of promptness and seriousness on the part

of the learned Magistrate. This continued inaction not only causes undue

hardship to the litigant but also undermines public confidence in the

justice delivery system. The Magistrate plays a pivotal role

in ensuring that justice is administered efficiently and fairly. Delay in

18/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

even taking a final report on file, particularly when there are standing

directions from this Court, undermines judicial discipline and conveys an

unwarranted impression of systemic indifference. Courts cannot remain

passive in the face of such lapses that result in avoidable hardship to citizens.

11.1(5) It is made clear that, hereafter, in all cases where a charge

sheet or final report is filed before the Magistrate, the same shall be taken on

file forthwith, and necessary action in accordance with law shall be initiated

without undue delay. No case shall remain at the stage of “charge sheet filed

but not taken on file,” as such procedural stagnation defeats the very object

of fair and timely administration of criminal justice. All Magistrates are

expected to act promptly on receipt of final reports and discharge their

judicial responsibilities with due diligence and urgency, especially where prior

directions of this Court exist.

11.1(6) Accordingly, in Crl.O.P.No.16882 of 2025, this Court directs

the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, to take up the final report

filed in Crime No.359 of 2022 through E-Filing No.C202400037 dated

10.02.2024, if not already taken on file, and, if found to be in order, to act

upon the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order, and proceed further in accordance with law. Likewise, in

Crl.O.P.No.21404 of 2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, is

19/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

also directed to take on file the final report filed by the respondent police on

11.05.2024, if not already taken on file, and, if found to be in order, to act

upon the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order, and proceed further in accordance with law.

11.1(7) It is further directed that the Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics) shall

take appropriate steps to address a recurring technical and administrative

issue observed during inspections. In Taluk-level courts where separate

establishments exist for each court, charge sheets filed through the e-filing

portal are readily accessible to the concerned Judicial Magistrates, thereby

facilitating timely perusal and further proceedings. However, in combined

court complexes, particularly at the District level where multiple Magistrates

function from a common establishment, it has been noticed that all charge

sheets filed through e-filing are received centrally without any system-based

segregation. As a result, the court staff / Judicial Officers are compelled to

manually verify each charge sheet to determine whether it pertains to their

jurisdiction or not. This process leads to significant administrative burden and

delay in placing the report before the appropriate court for consideration. The

Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics) is therefore directed to convene a meeting with

concerned judicial officers and administrative staff to devise and implement a

streamlined mechanism, whereby charge sheets filed through the e-filing

system are automatically routed, flagged, or otherwise made readily

20/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

identifiable by the concerned courts. This will ensure that the Magistrate

having jurisdiction is able to peruse the report and take appropriate action

without procedural delay. All necessary technical and procedural measures

shall be taken expeditiously to eliminate the difficulties currently being faced

in combined court establishments, so as to uphold the efficiency and

timeliness expected in criminal proceedings.

11.1(8) It has also come to the notice of this Court that there are

certain deviations and irregularities on the part of the investigating officers in

the manner of filing charge sheets before the concerned Magistrates. In

several cases, charge sheets are either not uploaded in the prescribed

formats or are incomplete, lacking necessary enclosures such as statements,

list of witnesses, or material documents. In some instances, charge sheets

are even filed before courts which do not have territorial or subject-matter

jurisdiction, resulting in unnecessary procedural delay and administrative

confusion. Such lapses not only delay the process of taking cognizance but

also impose avoidable burdens on the court establishment, affecting the

smooth functioning of the judicial system. In this regard, the Director General

of Police is requested to issue appropriate instructions to all investigating

agencies to strictly adhere to the prescribed procedure and format while filing

final reports. Further, it is recommended that structured training sessions be

conducted for all concerned police officers, particularly those responsible for

21/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

e-filing and charge sheet preparation, to ensure procedural compliance and

jurisdictional accuracy. This would go a long way in preventing avoidable

delay and improving the overall efficiency of criminal trial proceedings.

11.2. Non-Execution of Non-Bailable Warrants

(Crl.O.P.Nos.18139 & 20852 of 2025:-

11.2(1) In compliance with the directions issued by this Court dated

01.07.2025, the Registrar General has submitted a report dated 24.07.2025.

As per the report, there are 73,699 cases pending at the stage of execution of

Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) across the State. Shockingly, it includes two

cases where NBWs have remained unexecuted since as early as 1985. Out of

the total, 12,394 cases relate to the current year 2025, which means that

61,305 cases are pending from the period between 1985 and 2024. Although

the pendency for the current year may be within acceptable limits, the fact

that more than 61,000 cases have remained pending for several years and in

some instances, for decades is deeply troubling. The prolonged non-execution

of Non-Bailable Warrants over such an extended period reflects a serious

lapse in the functioning of the enforcement machinery and weakens the

effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The matter, therefore, calls for

immediate corrective measures to ensure timely execution of warrants and to

prevent such delays in future.

22/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

11.2(2) At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v.

State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791. In

that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the

mechanical and excessive issuance of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and laid

down detailed procedural safeguards to be followed uniformly by all courts

across the country. In paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment, the Hon'be

Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions regarding the issuance and

execution of NBWs. These include the use of machine-numbered warrant

forms, proper maintenance of warrant registers in both courts and police

stations, specifying return dates, and regular judicial monitoring of the

execution process. The Hon'ble Apex Court directed that compliance reports

must be filed within a fixed timeline and acted upon without delay. Further,

the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that long intervals for return of warrants

should be avoided. It emphasized that responsibility for any misuse or failure

in execution should be clearly traceable to specific officers through well-

maintained registers and ensured accountability by requiring that warrants be

forwarded through a supervising officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court also

underscored the importance of promptly recording and communicating the

cancellation of NBWs both to the executing authority and the accused, in

order to ensure procedural fairness and administrative discipline. For better

23/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

appreciation, the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted

hereunder:-

28. However, before parting with the judgment, we feel that in order
to prevent such a paradoxical situation, we are faced with in the instant case,
and to check or obviate the possibility of misuse of an arrest warrant, in
addition to the statutory and constitutional requirements to which reference
has been made above, it would be appropriate to issue the following
guidelines to be adopted in all cases where non-bailable warrants are issued
by the courts:
28.1. All the High Court shall ensure that the subordinate courts use
printed and machine numbered Form 2 for issuing warrant of arrest and each
such form is duly accounted for;
28.2. Before authenticating, the court must ensure that complete
particulars of the case are mentioned on the warrant;
28.3. The presiding Judge of the Court (or responsible officer
specially authorised for the purpose in case of High Courts) issuing the
warrant should put his full and legible signatures on the process, also
ensuring that Court seal bearing complete particulars of the Court is
prominently endorsed thereon;
28.4. The court must ensure that warrant is directed to a particular
police officer (or authority) and, unless intended to be open-ended, it must
be returnable whether executed or unexecuted, on or before the date
specified therein;
28.5. Every court must maintain a register (in the format given below
at p. 804), in which each warrant of arrest issued must be entered
chronologically and the serial number of such entry reflected on the top right
hand of the process;
28.6. No warrant of arrest shall be issued without being entered in
the register mentioned above and the court concerned shall periodically
check/monitor the same to confirm that every such process is always
returned to the court with due report and placed on the record of the case
concerned;
28.7. A register similar to the one in para 28.5 supra shall be
maintained at the police station concerned. The Station House Officer of the

24/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

police station concerned shall ensure that each warrant of arrest issued by
the court, when received is duly entered in the said register and is formally
entrusted to a responsible officer for execution;
28.8. Ordinarily, the courts should not give a long time for return or
execution of warrants, as experience has shown that warrants are prone to
misuse if they remain in control of executing agencies for long;
28.9. On the date fixed for the return of the warrant, the court must
insist upon a compliance report on the action taken thereon by the Station
House Officer of the police station concerned or the officer in charge of the
agency concerned;
28.10. The report on such warrants must be clear, cogent and legible
and duly forwarded by a superior police officer, so as to facilitate fixing of
responsibility in case of misuse;
28.11. In the event of warrant for execution beyond jurisdiction of
the court issuing it, procedure laid down in Sections 78 and 79 of the Code
must be strictly and scrupulously followed; and
28.12. In the event of cancellation of the arrest warrant by the court,
the order cancelling warrant shall be recorded in the case file and the
register maintained. A copy thereof shall be sent to the authority concerned,
requiring the process to be returned unexecuted forthwith. The date of
receipt of the unexecuted warrant will be entered in the aforesaid registers.
A copy of such order shall also be supplied to the accused.

Format of the Register

S.No The Case title and Name & The Date of Date of Date of Due date Report The Remar
number particulars Particulars of Officer/Pe judicial issue Cancellati of returned action ks
printed on the person rson to order on if any return on takes as
the form against whom whom directing reported
used warrant of directed Arrest
arrest is issued Warrant to
(accused/ be issued
witness)

29. We expect and hope that all the High Courts will issue appropriate
directions in this behalf to the subordinate courts, which shall endeavour to
put into practise the aforesaid directions at the earliest, preferably within six
months from today.

25/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

It is also pertinent to note that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and

Another [(2012) 9 SCC 791], was circulated by this Court to the Principal

Judge, Principal District Judges, Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, and the Chief

Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, with a request to communicate a copy

thereof to all the courts under their jurisdiction, vide communication in

T&PSC.No.3393 of 2011, dated 02.11.2011. As certain deviations were

noticed in the implementation of the directions contained in the said

communication, the Registrar General subsequently issued a circular in

R.O.C.No.72661-A/2018/F1, P.Dis.No.180/2018, reiterating the directions of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court as laid down in the above judgment. The circular

specifically recorded that, despite the earlier communication, certain judicial

orders had not adhered to the binding directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court,

and accordingly, the said judgment was re-issued for strict compliance by all

Judicial Officers in accordance with the law laid down therein.

11.2(3) Had the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra, [(2012) 9

SCC 791], and the circulars issued by this Court namely, the circular dated

02.11.2011 in T&PSC.No.3393 of 2011 and the Registrar General’s Circular

No. R.O.C.No.72661-A/2018/F1, P.Dis.No.180/2018 been properly considered

and implemented, it is highly unlikely that such a large number of Non-

26/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

Bailable Warrants (NBWs), totalling 73,699 as on 30.06.2025, would still be

pending. Of these, 61,305 warrants relate to cases pending between 1985

and 2024, which is a matter of serious concern.

11.2(4) In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not only

issued binding directions to all courts regarding the proper procedure for

issuing and monitoring NBWs, but had also specifically directed the police

authorities to promptly execute warrants, submit timely compliance reports,

and cooperate with the judiciary to ensure effective enforcement. However,

despite these clear and categorical instructions, neither the police authorities

nor the judicial officers have taken adequate steps to ensure compliance. This

clearly indicates that proper registers were not maintained, the status of

warrants was not periodically reviewed, and compliance reports were neither

insisted upon nor acted upon. The purpose of the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s

directions, reiterated through the above-mentioned circulars, was to prevent

precisely this situation where warrants remain pending for years without any

meaningful progress. Had the subordinate courts maintained the required

registers, regularly monitored execution, and ensured consistent follow-up

with the police, such a staggering level of pendency could have been avoided.

Judicial officers and police authorities must take personal responsibility and

ensure that NBWs are executed promptly, that registers are properly

maintained and monitored, and that no further delay is allowed to continue

unchecked.

27/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

11.2(5) In Crl.O.P. No.18139 of 2024, it is seen that the Non-Bailable

Warrant (NBW) issued on 18.12.2024 remained unexecuted, and the matter

was repeatedly posted on 12.02.2025, 26.03.2025, 07.05.2025, and

08.05.2025 without any substantial progress. In Crl.O.P.No.20852 of 2025,

although a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued as early as in the year 2018, it

has neither been taken on file nor returned, and no further steps appear to

have been taken in the matter. This continuous pendency, despite several

listings, reflects a lack of effective follow-up and coordination between the

Court and the executing agency. Such delay increases the risk of the warrant

becoming ineffective or misused and, more importantly, stalls the progress of

the criminal proceedings. In the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

it was also emphasized that where the accused is suspected to be outside the

jurisdiction, the procedure under Sections 78 and 79 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure / 80 and 81 of BNSS must be strictly followed for effective

execution through the appropriate Magistrate. However, instead of taking

such steps, merely keeping the matter pending serves no purpose and

directly hampers the commencement of trial.

11.2(6) Further, when an accused remains untraceable and the NBW

continues to be unexecuted, judicial officers are empowered to proceed under

Sections 82 and 83 CrPC / Section 84 and 85 of BNSS. The court may issue a

28/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

proclamation declaring the accused as a proclaimed offender and, if

necessary, order attachment of the accused's property to compel appearance.

In appropriate cases, the trial may even proceed in the absence of the

accused, depending on the circumstances. However, where no such action is

initiated, and the matter is simply adjourned from time to time, it will

inevitably result in undue delay and frustrate the very purpose of the trial.

Therefore, the court must proactively ensure that warranted actions under

the Code are taken without further delay.

11.2(7) It is also apposite to note that the Director General of Police

(DGP) filed a status report indicating that only 16,038 cases were pending at

the stage of execution of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs). However, the report

submitted by the Registrar General reflected that 73,699 such cases were

pending. In view of this significant discrepancy in the reported figures,

appropriate measures must be undertaken to reconcile the data and ensure

accurate and consistent reporting so as to avoid any future complications.

11.2(8) This Court takes serious note of the continued and deliberate

inaction by certain judicial officers and prosecuting authorities in failing to

comply with the binding directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

reiterated through various circulars and standing instructions of this Court.

These circulars are not intended to be treated as mere administrative

29/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

formalities; they are mandatory directions designed to uphold constitutional

mandates and protect the integrity of the judicial process.

11.2.(9) It is highly concerning that, despite repeated judicial and

administrative instructions, no effective follow-up action has been taken in

many cases particularly where the accused remain untraceable and Non-

Bailable Warrants have remained unexecuted for prolonged periods. The

failure to initiate appropriate proceedings under Sections 78, 79, 82, and 83

of the CrPC / 80, 81, 84 and 85 of BNSS despite clear judicial

pronouncements, is a matter of serious concern. In some instances, warrants

have remained pending even since the year 1985 under the category of

pending NBWs, which is completely unacceptable and reflects a breakdown in

the system. Such lapses are bound to have serious consequences and cannot

be ignored any further.

11.2(10) This is not merely a procedural lapse. Such gross inaction

undermines the very foundation of the justice delivery system. When courts

fail to act against absconding accused persons, it encourages them to evade

the law with impunity, causes undue hardship to complainants and victims,

and also creates room for possible misuse of power by the investigating

authorities. More alarmingly, it sends a completely unacceptable message to

society that the system can be manipulated or delayed indefinitely without

30/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

consequence. This Court cannot countenance such a state of affairs any

further.

11.2(11) Not only have procedural lapses been noticed in the

aforementioned discrepancies with regard to the issuance and execution of

Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs), but it is also observed that the disposal of

case properties is not being properly recorded or maintained in the court

registers. In several instances, there is a lack of clear documentation

concerning the chain of custody, current status, and final disposal of the

material objects seized during investigation. Such lapses may result in serious

administrative and legal consequences. It is, therefore, imperative that

immediate steps be taken to streamline the relevant procedures, ensure

individual accountability, and maintain accurate and up-to-date records in

strict adherence to the prescribed norms, rules, and judicial circulars.

Appointment of Nodal Officer:-

11.2(12) In order to ascertain whether all subordinate courts across

the State of Tamil Nadu are complying with the circulars and directions issued

by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court particularly with respect to the

issuance and execution of Non-Bailable Warrants, maintenance of registers,

disposal of case properties, and the imparting of necessary training, this Court

is of the considered view that the task necessitates the appointment of a

31/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

competent individual possessing adequate knowledge and experience in court

administration, especially in the handling and supervision of records from the

clerical to the administrative level. Accordingly, Mr.R.Mahesh Babu, a retired

Chief Administrative Officer, who has served in various districts, including the

Principal Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli; the Principal District Court,

Tiruchirappalli; as well as at Ariyalur and Tanjore, and who is found to

possess the requisite expertise and experience in the relevant domains, is

hereby appointed as the Nodal Officer for all subordinate courts across the

State of Tamil Nadu, initially for a period of one year, for the specific purpose

of independently inspecting and verifying compliance with the directions set

forth in the following paragraphs:-

11.2(13) The Nodal Officer shall undertake a detailed inspection of all

subordinate courts across the State, impart necessary training, and verify the

following aspects:-

(i) Whether all registers mandated under judicial pronouncements and

Registry Office circulars are being duly maintained in the prescribed format,

including registers for NBWs and case properties;

(ii) Whether judicial officers and court staff are complying with

procedures relating to the attachment, custody, and implementation of orders

regarding seized properties;

32/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

(iii) Whether case properties are being disposed of in accordance with

the orders of the respective courts, and whether any lapse, delay, or

negligence exists in the continued retention or mismanagement of such

properties.

(iv) To verify the consignment of case records to the District Court

central records, Civil Court Deposits, disposal of case properties, and all

other registers maintained on the administrative side.

(v) To impart training to all staff members in the respective districts

without disrupting the regular functioning of the courts, preferably, in any of

the Saturdays.

(vi) The Nodal Officer shall complete the inspection and file interim

reports, district-wise, as and when each inspection is completed, before the

Registrar General periodically. Thereafter, a comprehensive report shall be

submitted to this Court within a period of one year from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order. He shall be entitled to a remuneration of Rs. 50,000/-

per month, which shall be drawn from the Contingency Fund of the High

Court.

11.2(14) Direction to Registrar General:

(i) The Registrar General is directed to take necessary steps to

circulate the above appointment of the Nodal Officer to all Principal District

Judges and issue appropriate instructions to all judicial officers and staff to

33/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

extend full cooperation for the inspection, verification of records, and for the

training within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. The Registrar General shall also take necessary steps to ensure

timely disbursement of the monthly remuneration to the Nodal Officer from

the Contingency Fund of the High Court.

(ii) Upon receipt of the report from the Nodal Officer, the Registrar

General of this Court is directed to:

(a) Examine the periodical reports to be filed by the Nodal Officers,

district-wise, and take follow-up action through the Registrar (Inspection)

based on the findings in the said reports;

(b) After filing a comprehensive report, initiate appropriate

administrative or disciplinary action, if warranted, against any Judicial Officer,

court staff, or authority found to have neglected or failed to comply with the

binding directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court.

(c) File a status report before this Court indicating the nature of action

taken on the basis of the Nodal Officer’s report, within eight weeks from the

date of receipt of such report.

(d) The Registrar General shall also take appropriate steps to ensure

that the deficiencies, if any, highlighted in the report are addressed in a time-

bound and effective manner, with necessary training, supervision, or

correctional measures.

34/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

11.2(15) Considering that the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued

as early as in the year 2018 in Crl.O.P.No.20852 of 2025, and that another

NBW was issued on 18.12.2024 in Crl.O.P.No.18139 of 2025, both of which

remain unexecuted till date, this Court directs the respondent police to take

immediate steps to execute the said warrants within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event the warrants are

not executed within the said period, the same shall be returned to the Court

with an appropriate report, in line with the procedure reiterated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 28.8 and 28.9 of the judgment in

Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra, [(2012) 9

SCC 791].

11.2(16) Before parting with the matter, this Court finds it necessary

to reiterate that both the police and the judiciary bear a joint institutional

responsibility to deliver justice, particularly to poor and voiceless complainants

who approach the system in the hope of redress. Justice must not be denied

or delayed due to procedural irregularities or administrative indifference.

When an aggrieved citizen knocks on the doors of the court, it is the solemn

duty of every stakeholder be it the police or the court to ensure that the

process is fair, transparent, and in strict conformity with the law.

35/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

12. The Director General of Police is directed to take necessary steps

to implement the directions issued in paragraph No.11.1(8) and to file an

action taken report before this Court after a period of three months,

indicating the status of compliance with the said directions.

13. The Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics) is directed to comply with the

directions issued in paragraph No.11.1(7) and also file a compliance report

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

14. (i) The Registrar General is directed to comply with the directions

issued in para No.11.2(14)-(i) and (ii)(a) and file a report, during the next

date of hearing.

(ii) The Registrar General is directed to file the Action Taken Report

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the reports to be

filed by the Nodal Officer, who shall file the said report within a period of one

year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly taking note of the

directions issued in paragraph No.11.2(14)-(ii)(a), (b), (c), and (d).

15. In the result, Crl.O.P.Nos.16882 & 21404 of 2025 are disposed of

in terms of the directions issued in paragraph Nos.11.1(5) to 11.1.(8)

36/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

16. Crl.O.P.Nos.18139 of 2025 and 20852 of 2025 are disposed of in

terms of the directions issued in paragraph Nos.11.2(11) to 11.2(15).

17. List the matter after three months for reporting compliance.

01/08/2025

Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No

Note: Issue order copy on or before 04.08.2025

rns

37/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

To

1.The Inspector of Police,

K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
Chennai District.

2.The Inspector of Police,

CCB Police Station,
Tambaram.

3.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order),

J-8, Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police,

H-8 Police Station,
Nagamalai, Pudukottai.
Madurai District.

5.The V Metropolitan Magistrate,

Egmore.

6.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Tambaram.

7.The Metropolitan Magistrate,

Fast Track Court No.I, Allikulam

8.The Judicial Magistrate No.V,

Salem.

9.The Registrar General,

Madras High Court, Chennai.

10.The Register (IT cum Statistics),

Maras High Court, Chennai.

11.The Director General of Police,

Mylapore, Chennai.

38/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

12.Mr.R.Mahesh Babu,
No.22, Murugavel Nagar,
3rd Cross, K.K.Nagar,
Trichy - 620 021.
(Phone No.9443914168)

13.The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.

39/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )

 Crl.O.P.NOs.16882, 21404, 18139 & 20852 of 2025

P.VELMURUGAN, J

rns

Pre Delivery Order in

Crl.O.P.Nos.16882 & 21404 of 2025
and
Crl.O.P.Nos.18139 & 20852 of 2025

01/08/2025

40/40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:38 pm )