Madras High Court
S.Thilagaraj vs The State Represented By on 12 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021
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.13911 of 2021
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.7228 & 7231 of 2021
S.Thilagaraj ... Petitioner/
Sole Accused
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
VelliChandai Police Station,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent/
Complainant
2. Krishnammal ... Defacto Complainant/
Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 144 of 2010 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District in Crime No. 33
of 2010 on the file of the fisrt respondent Police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1
Mr.R.Murugan for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in C.C.No. 144 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, namely,
Krishnammal lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police stating that
on 11.04.2010, at about 04.00 p.m., when she feels itching on her neck, she
unwraped her 11 ¼ Sovereign Thali chain and put it on the floor after the she
applied ointment and slept. At that time, Thilagaraj, his wife and daughter
came to her house for inviting her to their house warming function. After they
left the defacto complainant's house, she noticed that the Thali chain was
missing. The entire jewel stolen is worth about Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Forty Thousand only). Hence she lodged the present complainant.
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. 33 of 2010 as against the petitioner and the same has been taken
cognizance in C.C.No. 144 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District. Hence he prayed to quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that
the trial has been commenced and P.W.1 to 4 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
original file for being proceeded with on merits in
accordance with law.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021
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.13911 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.13911 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. 144 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District. 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 petitions are also closed.
12.04.2022
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.13911 of 2021
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Eraniel,
Kanyakumari District.
2. Inspector of Police,
VelliChandai Police Station,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari 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.13911 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.13911 of 2021
&
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.7228 & 7231 of 2021
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
