Madras High Court
Sankaralingam @ Sankar vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.4408 and 4409 of 2022
Sankaralingam @ Sankar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Pudukkottai Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.152/2010)
2. Murugan ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call
for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No. 773/2017 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi and quash the same .
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(Criminal side)
for R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.773 of
2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, thereby
taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420 IPC, in Crime No.152 of
2010, as against the petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who was conducting
clinic in his house, without obtaining proper degree, that on 19.05.2010 at about
07.00PM, the petitioner gave treatment to the defacto complainant/first
respondent and obtained cash of Rs.300/- from him.
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.152 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 420 IPC, as against the
petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.773 of 2017 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi. Hence, prayed to
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
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., 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.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
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.
9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.773 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi. 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 a copy of this Order.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
06.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The Inspector of Police,
Pudukkottai Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.4408 and 4409 of 2022
06.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
