Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 21358 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.13891 and 13894 of 2022
S.Baskaran ... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.Uma
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.260/2021 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Palanivel
For R2 & R3 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.260/2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first respondent lodged a complaint before the 3rd respondent in Ref. No.P2/1922/115/2019, DPO and later it was forwarded to 2nd Respondent in C.No.118/DSP /DCB/ VPM/2019. The petitioner is the friend of the 1st respondent and the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from the 1st respondent through one Kadhiravan and thereafter the petitioner did not repaid the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. For which, 1st respondent made a request to the petitioner for repayment, but he evaded the repayment and stated that his friend Thattanchavady Sendhil is not in a position to repay the amount and intended to convey his property/plots at Sendhil Nagar, Pattanur in lieu of the amount received from the 1st respondent. The petitioner has pressurized and induced the 1st respondent to get the Sale Deed executed as the property is in prime location and in the absolute Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022 possession of Thattanchavady Sendhil and forced the 1st respondent to purchase the property in Plot Nos.17 and 18 of Sendhil Nagar, Pattanur, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District for which the fixed sale price @ Rs.700/-
per sq.ft. to an extent of 2400 sq.ft. and Sale Deed dated 28.02.2011 vide document No.1043/2011 was executed by one Elangovan who is owner of the property/plots. The petitioner attested as witness in the above sale deed and the 1st respondent has further alleged that the petitioner along with other accused have received a sum of Rs.16,80,000/- towards the sale consideration and Rs.70,000/- as registration expenses. Further alleged that the 1st respondent applied for the Patta and the Tahsildar Vanur rejected the application stating that in Plot Nos.17 and 18 at Sendhil Nagar, Pattanur being re-survey No.238/1 relates to Patta No.595 and the same stood in the name of one Kannan. The complaint further alleged that the petitioner along with other accused forged the documents a common intention to cheat the 1st respondent and used the forged documents as genuine for their unlawful gain to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/- for which one Sekar also rendered his assistance to them. Therefore, the act of all the said six persons are liable to be punished u/s.465, 468 r/w 34, 471 and 506 (2) of I.P.C.
Page 3 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner lodged a complaint and the same was enquired and closed. The first respondent has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 r/w 34, 471 and 506 (2) of I.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner being a police officer a false case has been foisted against him.
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 Mr.M.Palanivel learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second and third respondents.
6. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble 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., as follows:-
Page 4 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022 " 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 5 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 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, wherein, it has been 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 completely incorrect and uncalled for.” Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022
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 incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022 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.260 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.
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.
Page 8 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022
10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
08.09.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Speaking/non speaking order rgm/sma To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram.
4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
Page 9 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Sma/Rgm Crl.O.P.No. 21358 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.13891 and 13894 of 2022 08.09.2022 Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis