Muniyammal vs The Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 11503 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11503 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 June, 2021

Madras High Court

Muniyammal vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 June, 2021

                                                                              Crl.O.P.No. 10123 of 2021


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 09.06.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                Crl.O.P.No. 10123 of 2021
                                          and Crl.MP.Nos.6143 and 6144 of 2021
                     1. Muniyammal
                     2. S.Pushparani
                     3. Manimegalai
                                                                                     ... Petitioners
                                                             Vs

                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                        District Crime Branch,
                        Kancheepuram District.
                        Cr.No.16 of 2017.

                     2. Krishnamoorthy                                         ... Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to
                     call for the records relating to the Calender Case in CC.No.260 of 2020 on
                     the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu, quash the same
                     insofar as the petitioners concerned.

                                           For Petitioners   : Mr.G.Mageshkumar

                                           For Respondent    : Mr.A.Damodaran       R1
                                                               Government Advocate (Crl.side)


                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               Crl.O.P.No. 10123 of 2021


                                                          ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.260

of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu,

thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 465,468, 471 &

420 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, in Crime No.16 of 2017, as against

these petitioners and other three accused.

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.16 of 2017 for the offences under Sections

465,468, 471 & 420 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, as against these

petitioners and other three accused persons and the same has been taken

cognizance in C.C.No. 260 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu and also the learned counsel for the

petitioners requested this Court to dispense with the presence of

the petitioners. The learned counsel prayed to quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 10123 of 2021

3. 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.

4. Heard Mr.G.Magesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side)

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 10123 of 2021

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 10123 of 2021

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 10123 of 2021

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. 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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 10123 of 2021

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.260 of 2020 in Crime No.16 of 2017 on

the file of the first respondent. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the

grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age of the petitioners, 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