The Madras High Court has held that the routine filing of Section 317 of the Cr.P.C Petition need not be considered by the Trial Court in all circumstances.

The Court dismissed a criminal original petition filed by 15 accused persons (Petitioners) seeking to recall non-bailable warrants (NBWs) issued by the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). The Bench held that in the event of filing frivolous Petitions to prolong and protract the Trial, such Petitions must be rejected in limine and exemplary costs must be imposed.

A Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman ordered, “In the present case, the number of Section 317 Cr.P.C petitions filed before the Trial Court during the course of trial is alarming. Therefore, the Trial Court is expected to proceed with the trial without granting unnecessary adjournment and by not entertaining frivolous petitions. In the event of filing frivolous petitions by the accuseds, with an intention to prolong and protract the trail, such petitions are to be rejected in limine, if required by imposing exemplary costs. Since the present case is pending for about 22 years, we request the Trial Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

Advocate R Sankarasubbu represented the Petitioners, while Additional Public Prosecutor R Muniyapparaj appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Petitioners were accused in a case pending for over 22 years, involving charges under Sections 120B, 148, 149, 333, and 307 of the IPC read with Sections 3(2)(b) and 3(5) of the POTA. They were issued NBWs by the Special Court for their absence during hearings after their applications under Section 317 of the CrPC were dismissed.

Arguments Advanced By the Petitioners

The Petitioners argued that they had appeared for all previous hearings either personally or through counsel and sought to recall the NBWs. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), which emphasised that the issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime or is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court noted that more than 400 Section 317 of the Cr.P.C Petitions were filed by the Petitioners. “Keeping the above provisions in mind, and considering the fact that, within a period of 1 ½ years, 451 hearings were conducted, out of which, the petitioners were present hardly on 22 occasions,” the Bench noted.

The very statistics provided by the respondents would be sufficient to form an opinion that attempt is made to obstruct the free flow of trial proceedings. Despite the fact that opportunities were granted and many number of Section 317 Cr.P.C petitions filed by the accused persons were allowed by the Trial Court,” it remarked.

Noting the right to a fair trial as sine-qua-non of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench pointed out that the accused are equally expected to cooperate for the completion of trial in all respects and they can file Section 317 Cr.P.C Petition only on genuine grounds. It was held that “it cannot be a routine affair on the part of the accused persons by filing 317 Cr.P.C petitions.

Consequently, the Court held, “Therefore, routine filing of Section 317 Cr.P.C petition need not be considered by the Trial Court in all circumstances. The practice of filing such petitions, in the absence of any valid reason needs no merit consideration. The provisions are provided to dispense with the presence of the accused only on certain exceptional circumstances and the Courts have to consider by recording reasons. Reasons being live link for Section 317 Cr.P.C, it cannot be a mechanical affair.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Martin @ Tamil Selvan @ Martin TamilSelvan & Ors. v. State

Click here to read/download the Order