Madras High Court

Selva Ganesh vs The Inspector Of Police on 10 June, 2021

                                                                                 Crl.O.P.No. 8034 of 2021


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED      10.06.2021

                                                            CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                 Crl.O.P.No. 8034 of 2021

                     Selva Ganesh                                                ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs

                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                        CCB Police Station,
                        Salem.
                        (Crime No.24/2017)

                     2. Kumar                                                    ... Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records in C.C.No.196/2018 on the file of Judicial
                     Magistrate-IV, Salem.

                                           For Petitioner     : Mr.K.Thenrajan

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

                                                               Mr.A.Ramesh
                                                               Senior Counsel (R2)
                                                               for Mr.B.A.Sanjay Prasanna

                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                   Crl.O.P.No. 8034 of 2021


                                                          ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.196

of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Salem, thereby

taken cognizance for the offences under Section 420 of I.P.C., in Crime

No.24 of 2017, as against this petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused agreed to

purchase the Volvo car belonging to the de-facto complainant for a sum of

Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) and also paid a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only as advance and took delivery of the

car, by promising him to settle the remaining amount within a week, but he

failed to do so and thereby cheated the de-facto complainant. Further, the

petitioner/accused received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs

only) from the de-facto complainant by promising him to arrange bulk loan

of Rs.70 crores, but failed to arrange the loan as promised by him and also

not returned the amount, received from the de-facto complainant. When the

de-facto complainant demanded the same, the petitioner/accused threated

the de-facto complainant with dire consequences.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 8034 of 2021

the petitioner is innocent 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.24 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506

(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance

in C.C.No. 196 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV,

Salem. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4.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.

5.Heard Mr.K.Thenrajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 8034 of 2021

" 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 8034 of 2021

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 8034 of 2021

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. The question whether the appellant will

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No. 8034 of 2021

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

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.196 of 2018 in Crime No.24 of 2017 on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Salem. The petitioner is at

liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. 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.

10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.