Madras High Court
R.Senthilkumar vs The State Represented By on 8 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13767 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.13767 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.7146 of 2021
R.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner/
Accused
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Police Station,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District.
(Crime No.586 of 2014) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. S.Gnanapriya ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records in C.C.No.240 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate-II, Tuticorin and quash the same as against the Petitioner/Accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.KA.Raamakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1
No appearance for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13767 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.240 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate-II, Tuticorin.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who is the
sister-in-law of the petitioner/Accused, already had partition disputes between
them. Both are doing Bakery business, for which, they both have a separate
working area in the same godown premises, where, they prepare their products
by engaging separate labours. On 20.11.2014, in the godown, the defacto
complainant asked the Accused about the Birth Certificate of the labour who
was employed by the Accused. At that time, wordy quarrel arose between the
petitioner and the defacto complainant and the petitioner used abusive words,
caused simple injury and gave a life threat to the defacto complainant. Hence
the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint.
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.586 of 2014 as against the petitioner and the same has been taken
cognizance in C.C.No.240 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate-II, Tuticorin. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13767 of 2021
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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
allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and
restore the aforementioned complaint case to its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13767 of 2021
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 Court at this stage, when the matter has been
taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is
completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13767 of 2021
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
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...................."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13767 of 2021
The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the
points raised by the petitioners 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.240 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate-II, Tuticorin. 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 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
08.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13767 of 2021
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-II,
Tuticorin.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Central Police Station,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13767 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.13767 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.7146 of 2021
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
