Mahendran vs State Rep. By
2022 Latest Caselaw 7692 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7692 Mad
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Mahendran vs State Rep. By on 12 April, 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 12.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6775 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.4679 and 4680 of 2022

1. Mahendran
2. Lakshmi
3. Chithra
4. Poomathi ...Petitioners

Vs.

1. State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station
Aranthangi, Pudukottai District

2. Ramya ...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in CC No.149 of 2021 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

in CC No.149 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent got

married the petitioner as per the Hindu rites and customs and out of the

wedlock they were blessed with a female child. The petitioner herein often

used to consume alcohol and quarrel with the second respondent to bring

additional dowry. In that regard panchayat was conducted and the issue was

pacified. During the month of November 2019 the second respondent was

admitted in the hospital for delivery and as per the doctor's advice she under

went caesarean. After delivery the petitioners went to the hospital and

scolded the second respondent why she underwent caesarean. After lapse of

five months, when she went to the matrimonial home, the petitioners did

not allow her and caused cruelty on her, hence the present case came to be

registered.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence

as alleged by the prosecution.

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides.

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:-

" 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.”

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:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

"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 petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

` 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to

quash the proceedings in CC No.149 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate, Aranthangi. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds

before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance of the petitioners

are 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