Madras High Court
Abdul Haji vs State Through on 4 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6157 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6157 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.4273 and 4275 of 2022
Abdul Haji ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. State through
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch Police Station,
Trichy District.
(In Cr.No.13/2015)
2. Murali ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to call for the records in C.C.No.55 of 2022 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy and quash the same as devoid of merits.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6157 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 55 of
2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy, thereby taken
cognizance for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, as
against the petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had
purchased plots in S.Nos.102/1, 234/2 situated at Om Sakthi Nagar,
Samayapuram Village from one M.Karunanithi through a registered sale deed
on 10.08.2001. The said Karunanithi had already purchased the said property
through a registered sale deed from the petitioner on 09.12.1998. But the
petitioner cancelled the said sale deed dated 09.12.1998 and by concealing the
same, one Gulam Kadhar, gave general power deed to Beer Mohammed in the
year 2013, in respect of the said property and they converted the same into
Om Shakthi Nagar and sold the same to Anitha and Thilagavathy through a
registered sale deed, dated 29.05.2013 and laid fence. Therefore, the
petitioner made a complaint with the first respondent police and the same has
been registered in Crime No.13 of 2015, under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of
IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6157 of 2022
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is innocent and he had not committed any offence as alleged by
the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case
in Crime No. 13 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of
IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.
No. 55 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy. Hence he
prayed to quash the same.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial
has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this
case.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
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., wherein it is held as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6157 of 2022
" 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, while 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, has held as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6157 of 2022
“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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6157 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6157 of 2022
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.55 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Trichy. 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 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 nine months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
04.04.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6157 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch Police Station,
Trichy District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.6157 of 2022
04.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
