Madras High Court
Saquib Khursheed vs The Inspector Of Police on 11 June, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 11.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.Nos.5573 & 5574 of 2021
Saquib Khursheed
S/o.Dr.Khursheed Ahmed ... Petitioner
Vs
The Inspector of Police,
Law & Order,
S.15, Selaiyur Police Station,
St.Thomas Mount,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for all the records relating in C.C.No.39 of 2020 dated
27.01.2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Vedavallikumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.39 of
2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, thereby taken
cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b), 332 and 506(2) IPC, in
Crime No.1094 of 2018, 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 police
registered a case in Crime No.1094 of 2018 for the offences under Sections
294(b), 332 and 506(2) IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been
taken cognizance in C.C.No.39 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Tambaram. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
4. Heard Mr.C.S.Vedavallikumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) appearing for the 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/
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
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 conclusion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
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
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.39 of 2020 in Crime No.1094 of 2018 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
and he shall be 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 twelve months from the date of receipt
of copy of this Order.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is Dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
11.06.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/no
gbi/kv
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Law & Order,
S.15, Selaiyur Police Station,
St.Thomas Mount, Chennai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
gbi/kv
Crl.O.P.No.8459 of 2021
11.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
