Crl.O.P.No.22764 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.22764 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos.14591 and 14592 of 2022
Panneer ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thandarampattu Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.32 of 2016)
2. Ramasamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records relating to CC.No.103 of 2016 pending on the
file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thandarampattu,
Tiruvannamalai District in so far the petitioner is concerned and to quash the
same and to allow the above Criminal Original Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.22764 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records relating to CC.No.103 of 2016 pending on the file of District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Thandarampattu, Tiruvannamalai District in so far the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to pathway dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between the defacto complainant and the accused persons. It is also alleged that the accused persons abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also attacked with iron pipe and caused injuries to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323 and 324 of IPC, as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.103 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thandarampattu, Tiruvannamalai District. Hence he prayed to quash the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 Crl.O.P.No.22764 of 2022
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and so far the prosecution have examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 in this case.
5. In this regard, 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.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 Crl.O.P.No.22764 of 2022 restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.
6. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 Crl.O.P.No.22764 of 2022 High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
7. 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 alleged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 Crl.O.P.No.22764 of 2022 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 are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Thandarampattu, Tiruvannamalai District. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.
21.09.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7 Crl.O.P.No.22764 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn To
1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thandarampattu, Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Thandarampattu Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.22764 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.14591and 14592 of 2022 21.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7