Kumar @ Jayakumar vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7953 Mad

                                                                                     Crl.O.P(MD)No.7004 of 2022


                                      BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                         DATED : 18.04.2022

                                                                CORAM

                                       THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                     Crl.O.P(MD) No.7004 of 2021
                                             and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.4807 and 4810 of 2022


                     Kumar @ Jayakumar                                                          ... Petitioner

                                                                   Vs

                     The Deputy Superintendent of Police
                     Idol Wing-CID
                     Guindy, Chennai                                                          ...Respondent



                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying
                     this Court to call for the records of the charge sheet in CC No.55 of 2018 on the
                     file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and quash the same
                     as illegal as against the petitioner.


                                               For Petitioner      : Mr.R.M.Suresh

                                               For Respondent      : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                                      Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                                ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.55 of 2018

on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.7004 of 2022

2. It is seen that the petitioner has already filed a quash petition before

this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.8455 of 2021 and this Court by an order dated

14.07.2021 has dismissed the petition. Suppressing the same, the petitioner has

filed this petition to quash the proceedings in CC No.55 of 2018 on the file of

the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that already trial

commenced and PW.1 and PW.2 were examined on 17.12.2019 itself and the

matter stands posted for examination of further prosecution witnesses.

4. Further the case of the prosecution is that based on an anonymous call

and tip off on 14.05.2015 at around 11.30 am., it was informed to the Special

Sub Inspector of Police that a person travelling on a splendor motor cycle was

carrying a bag with stolen idol and travelling to Mettuapalayam, West

Mamabalam and would reach CSI church within half an hour and accordingly

they rushed to the spot and held one Dhanalingam with a bag and that when

they opened the bad they found two panchaloga idols namely Chakrathualwar

and Amman. When enquired about the same, the said Dhanalingam could not

give proper answers, hence they concluded that the idols might have been stolen

hence the present case came to be registered as against the accused persons.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.7004 of 2022

5. 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.

6. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.7004 of 2022

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.”

7. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.7004 of 2022

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.

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

the proceedings in CC No.55 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within

a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.7004 of 2022

10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently

connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

18.04.2022 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/no aav

To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Idol Wing-CID Guindy, Chennai

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.7004 of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

aav

Crl.O.P(MD)No.7004 of 2021

18.04.2022

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