Madras High Court
Jyoti Poddar vs M/S. Phocos India Solar Pvt. on 2 August, 2021
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
and Crl.M.P.No. 3818 of 2016
Jyoti Poddar
Director,
M/s. Environ Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,
No.60-A, Diamond Harbour Road,
Thakurpukur, Kolkata - 700 063 ... Petitioner
Vs
M/s. Phocos India Solar Pvt., Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director Kathiravan,
... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying
to call for the records in STR.No.12659 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Puducherry and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ravi
For Respondent : No Appearance
----
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
STR.No.12659 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Puducherry, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under
Section 200 of CrPC., r/w Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 as against this petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent/complainant
filed a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC., read with Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Puducherry, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken
cognizance in STR.No.12659 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Puducherry. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
3. Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and perused the materials available on record.
4. 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/
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
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.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
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.”
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
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. 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.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in STR.No.12659 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Puducherry. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age of the petitioner, the
personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
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.
8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
02.08.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/no
msm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
msm
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry.
Crl.O.P.No. 7302 of 2016
and Crl.M.P.No. 3818 of 2016
02.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
