Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 05.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022 and
Crl.MP.No.3781 of 2022
C.Sivakumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Inspector of Police,
Saidapet Police Station,
Chennai
(in crime No.1892 of 2017)
2.Deepa Oli ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records in CC.No.1365 of 2020 pending on the file of
the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and to quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022
For R2 : Mr.S.Shujath Hussain
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.1365 of 2020 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 323 & 420 of IPC, in Crime No.1892 of 2017, as against this petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had earlier married the petitioner and the complainant suspected the petitioner of having illicit relationship with another woman. While being so, she lodged complaint on 28.04.2017 alleging that the petitioner and other accused persons trespassed the house of the complainant on 27.04.2017 at around 8.00 p.m. and assaulted the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a family dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent. They also filed petition for divorce by mutual consent in Crl.OP.No.2149 of 2017.
Page 2 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.
5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.
6. It is seen that after filing divorce petition, the occurrence took place and the said petition ended in vain. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in CC.No.1365 of 2020 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. It is also seen that there are specific allegations to attract offence under Sections 147, 323 & 420 of IPC as against the petitioner.
Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to be considered, since there are specific materials to attract offence under Sections 147, 323 & 420 of IPC as against the petitioner. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022 Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., wherein it is held as follows:-
" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022
7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, held as follows:
“19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put- forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022 completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows:
"9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged.
..............
13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022 incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................." The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1365 of 2020 in Crime No.1892 of 2017 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.09.2022 Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Speaking/non speaking order lok Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022 Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, lok To
1.The learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
2.Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.6654 of 2022 05.09.2022 Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis