Madras High Court
Karpagam vs The State Represented By on 13 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14822 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.14822 of 2020
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.7032 & 7034 of 2020
Karpagam ... Petitioner/
Accused No.2
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Virudhunagar West Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.341 of 2016) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. Krishnan ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the entire records relating to the in C.C.No.426 of 2019 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar and quash the same insofar as
petitioner/A.2 is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14822 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in C.C.No.426 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Virudhunagar.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the other accused
are having Consultancy Office, namely, S.K.Consultancy situated neat B.S.N.L.
Office Iyyan Complex, Virudhunagar. The accused persons used to send
interested persons for job at abroad countries. The allegations against the
petitioner / Accused No.2 is that he extended helping hand in the said
Consultancy Office running by the Accused No.1, namely, Sethu @ Sethuraman
@ Sethupathy. While so, it is further alleged that the defacto complainant
approached the said Consultancy on 16.10.2015 and handed over passport as
well as cash of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). On receipt of the
said amount, the Accused No.1 assured to get a job in Japan Country. But, the
Accused No.1 failed to fulfil the promise made by him and no steps have been
taken to get the job at abroad. Hence, the defacto complainant requested to
give back the passport and the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only). In turn, the accused persons repaid Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only) and remaining Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only)
has not been paid. Hence, the said charge has been filed as against the
petitioner herein as well as the another accused person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14822 of 2020
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the
prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in
Crime No.341 of 2016 as against the petitioner and the same has been taken
cognizance in C.C.No.426 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Virudhunagar. Hence she prayed to quash the same.
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14822 of 2020
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14822 of 2020
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:
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14822 of 2020
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.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.426 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, No.I, Virudhunagar. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance of the
petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing
appropriate application. However, the petitioner 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14822 of 2020
directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.04.2022
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.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Virudhunagar.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Virudhunagar West Police Station,
Virudhunagar 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.14822 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.14822 of 2020
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.7032 & 7034 of 2020
13.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
