Madras High Court
Petchipandian vs The State Represented By on 11 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1117 & 1118 of 2022
1.Petchipandian
2.Enniyammal
3.Subramaniyan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police (Land Grabbing),
DCB Police Station,
Madurai District.
In Crime No.34 of 2019.
2.G.Arumugam ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in C.C.No.398 of 2021 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same as devoid of
merits.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 2 : Mr.J.Lawrance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners in C.C.No.398 of 2021 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
worked in Madurai Kamarajar University in Computer Science
Department as the Head of the Department as Senior Professor and
got retirement and his wife is a Doctor. After his retirement, he
decided to start to business in Elcot Tidle Park and to improve his
present Trust, he approached his friends, but no financial assistance
available. In the said circumstances, he approached the third
petitioner and his relatives viz., petitioners 1 and 2, who are doing
finance. They agreed to give a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on condition
that the properties in the name of his wife and Trust have to be sold
in the name of the second petitioner and demanded for the same.
Further, the third petitioner assured that as soon as the loan was
settled, they will cancel the sale deed and they will not encumber
the said property at any point and on their promise and assurance,
the second respondent agreed to get loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and
the petitioners also demanded interest of Rs.6,00,000/- per month.
While so, on 08.03.2017, the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 of 2022
respondent entered into MOU, in which, the petitioners 1 and 2
agreed to cancel the sale deed as soon as the loan was settled, in
which, the third petitioner signed as witness, thus believing their
words and assurance, the second respondent and his wife signed in
the said document. While so, in the month of July, 2018, interest
was delayed, hence the petitioners along with their henchmen came
to the second respondent house and threatened them that they will
kill them, if they failed to return the loan with huge interest. Hence,
the second respondent lodged a complaint before the
Superintendent of Police, in which the petitioners 1 and 3 appeared
and demanded Rs.2,55,00,000/- and assured that they will cancel
the sale deeds if the said amount was returned and the petitioners
and the second respondent have entered into an agreement to
cancel the documents. On receipt of the amounts, the petitioners
have cancelled four documents except one property ie., Document
No.252 of 2016, for which, the petitioners demanded a sum of
Rs.70,00,000/-. In the month of January, 2019, the second
respondent arranged the said amount and demanded the petitioners
to cancel the document, but the petitioners failed to turn back.
Subsequently, the petitioners created encumbrance by executing a
mortgage deed vide Document No.2835 of 2018 in favour of
Rajamani and P.Murugan. Thus, the petitioners with intention to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 of 2022
grab the property received Rs.6,00,000/- 3% interest for Rs.
2,00,00.000/- and got the property for sale illegally and the third
petitioner received commission and from the beginning itself, they
planned to grab the property and threatened the second
respondent. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint
before the first respondent and the same has been registered in
Crime No.34 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 406, 420,
120(b), 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 against
the petitioners. On the basis of the final report filed by the first
respondent, the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.398 of
2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the
the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
4. 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.(MD)No.1536 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.
5. 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 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.”
6. 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 of 2022
"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...................."
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 of 2022
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.398 of 2021 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. The petitioners are at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal appearance of
the petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a
counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners
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 copy
of this Order.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
11.04.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
vsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1536 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vsd
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police (Land Grabbing),
DCB Police Station,
Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1536 of 2022
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
