CRL.O.P.No.21817 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.21817 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P.Nos.14107 & 14108 of 2022
1.D.Amarnathan
2.A.Bhuvaneshwari
3.P.Karthikeyan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State Rep. by its
Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch
EDF-1, Team-2, Veppery,
Chennai - 07.
2. P.Panneerselvam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in CC No.1620 of 2022 pending on the file of
Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive trial of CCB & CBCID Cases
at Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Prakash
For Respondents : Mr. E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.21817 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records in CC No.1620 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive trial of CCB & CBCID Cases at Egmore, Chennai for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 422 & 506(i) of IPC and to quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the A1/deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) each from the complainant and one Mr.Saravanan for investing the money in stock market and assured them to return back within two months with 50 % profit accrued through investment, for which he allegedly executed a loan agreement dated 03.03.2018 in the presence of the 1st petitioner/A2. All of sudden, on 15.07.2018, the A1 has committed suicide by consuming pills in a lodge namely Raj Residency Hotel situated at Kent Lane, Egmore, Chennai – 600
008. Therefore, for recovery of alleged money the de-facto complainant has lodged a private complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB & CBCID Cases at Egmore, Chennai. Based on the complaint, the learned Magistrate directed the 1st respondent police to register an First Information Report. Based on which, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.21817 of 2022 on 05.02.2020, the 1st respondent police registered the Crime No.39 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 422 and 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB & CBCID Cases at Egmore, Chennai on 27.01.2022 and after taking cognizance, issued summons to the accused and copies were served on 04.07.2022.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are neither the applicants nor the guaranteers. A1 Viz., the son of the 1st & 2nd petitioner borrowed a loan from the de-facto complainant and cheated the de-facto complainant. However, the petitioners are no way connected with them and even one of the witnesses clearly spoken about the role played by the petitioners. Therefore, after the death of A1, the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that 1st & 2nd petitioners/A2 & A3 are parents of A1 and the 3rd petitioner/A4 is the brother-in-law of the A1 and they have nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.21817 of 2022 witnesses have been examined in this case.
5. Heard Mr. Mr.N.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.21817 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.21817 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. ..............
13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.21817 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. Whereas, on perusal of the statement of the 2nd respondent, it is very clear that there are specific averments as against each of the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 406, 420, 422 and 506(i) of IPC. That apart, they assured to return the amount after the death of the A1. They also categorically admitted that on the receipt of the money from the de-facto complainant, they redeemed the jewels pledged in the Muthoot Finance and has also invested the money on their own company called Sujline Technologies Private Ltd. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioners cannot be considered before this Court in a quash petition, since they are all mixed question of facts.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.21817 of 2022 quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1620 of 2022 in Crime No.39 of 2020 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB & CBCID Cases at Egmore, Chennai. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The personal appearance of the petitioners are dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners 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 9 months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
11. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are also closed.
12.09.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mpl https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.21817 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mpl To
1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch EDF-1, Team-2, Veppery, Chennai - 07.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB & CBCID Cases at Egmore, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.21817 of 2022 & Crl.M.P.Nos.14107 & 14108 of 2022 12.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 9