G.Jeyaraj Pandiyan vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 8050 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8050 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2022

Madras High Court

G.Jeyaraj Pandiyan vs The Inspector Of Police on 19 April, 2022

                                                                                  Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 7134 of 2022


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED : 19.04.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.O.P(MD) No.7134 of 2022
                                             and Crl.M.P(MD) No.4901 of 2022

                     G.Jeyaraj Pandiyan                                                       ... Petitioner

                                                               Vs

                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                        Sivagiri Police Station
                        Sivagiri Taluk
                        Tenkasi District

                     2. K.Ramachandran
                       Inspector General of Police (Rtd)
                       Door NO.6/291A
                       Rayagiri Main Road
                       Viswanathapuri Village
                       Sivagiri Taluk, Tenkasi District                               ...Respondents



                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying
                     this Court to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the final report in
                     CC No.191 of 2021 dated 28.12.2020 pending before the learned Judicial
                     Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District and quash the same.


                                          For Petitioner       : Mrs.A.Devaki

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



                     1/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 7134 of 2022


                                                              ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.191 of

2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District

2. The complainant is the brother-in-law of the accused/petitioner. The

case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein has sent a legal notice tot he

second respondent dated 08.03.2020 which was received by the second

respondent on 12.03.2020 and he has sent a reply notice on 14.03.2020 Then

on 20.07.2020 the second respondent/defacto complainant filed a civil case in

O.S.No.159 of 2020 and the suit is now still pending before the Additional District

and Sessions Court at Tenkasi, for which the second respondent has given a

criminal case before the first respondent.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is innocent and he has 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 Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 7134 of 2022

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 7134 of 2022

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:

"9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 7134 of 2022

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.

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

the proceedings in CC No.191 of 2021 dated 28.12.2020 pending before the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District. The petitioner is at liberty to

raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 7134 of 2022

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