Kesavan vs State Rep. By
2021 Latest Caselaw 10569 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 10569 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 April, 2021

Madras High Court

Kesavan vs State Rep. By on 26 April, 2021

                                                                     1           Crl.O.P.No. 2451 of 2016


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 26.04.2021

                                                         CORAM

                       THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                                CRL.O.P.No. 2451 of 2016


                     1.Kesavan
                     2.Palaniammal                                                  ...Petitioners

                                                        .Vs.

                     State rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Nagarampatti Police Station,
                     Krishnagiri.

                     2.Shankar                                                    ...Respondents



                                    Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
                     of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.190 of 2015
                     pending on the file of District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate,
                     Pochampalli and quash the same.



                                      For Petitioners    : Mr.S.V. Devasanthi

                                       For Respondent : Mr.S. Karthikeyan For R1
                                                        Additional Public Prosecutor
                                                          ----

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                 2          Crl.O.P.No. 2451 of 2016




                                                       ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.190 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial

Magistrate, Pochampalli, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under

Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.308 of 2015, as

against the petitioners/A1&A4.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not

committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base,

the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 308 of 2015

for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC, as

against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in

C.C.No. 190 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsiff Cum Judicial

Magistrate, Pochampalli. Hence they pray to quash the same.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would

submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have

been examined in this case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

4. Heard Mr.S.V.Devasanthi, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

5. 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/

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.

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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.”

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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. 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 petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not

inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 190 of 2015 in Crime No.

308 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate,

Pochampalli. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before

the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial as

expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

26.04.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No msm