Crl.O.P.No.21666 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 21666 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.14049 of 2022
Angappan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by, Inspector of Police,
CCB, EDF-1, Team-1
Crime No. 160 of 2021,
Veperi, Chennai - 7.
2. Sucharitha Madanagopal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9623 of 2021 on the file of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in the court of Exclusive
Trial of CCB cases.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Devaraj
For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.J.Suresh
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21666 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9623 of 2021 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in the court of Exclusive Trial of CCB cases.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused cheated the defacto complainant by executing fabricated sale deeds in his favour and thereby cheated to the tune of Rs.2,47,80,000/-. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submit that suit in O.S.No.3835 of 2021 is pending on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.
Page 2 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21666 of 2022
5. Heard Mr.M.Devaraj learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the second respondent.
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:-
" 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.Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21666 of 2022
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.
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.Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21666 of 2022
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.”
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.Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21666 of 2022 ..............
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 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.9623 of 2021 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 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 Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21666 of 2022 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.
10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.09.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Speaking/non speaking order sma To
1. Inspector of Police, CCB, EDF-1, Team-1 Crime No. 160 of 2021, Veperi, Chennai - 7.
2. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21666 of 2022 Sma Crl.O.P.No. 21666 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.14049 of 2022 09.09.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis