Madras High Court

R.Venkatachari @ R.V.Chari vs The Inspector Of Police on 19 April, 2022

                                                                             Crl.O.P(MD)No.2760 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.2760 of 2022
                                                         and
                                         Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.2084 and 2085 of 2022

                     R.Venkatachari @ R.V.Chari                                ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs.
                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                        Cantonment Police Station,
                        Tiruchirapalli.
                       (Cr.No.1036 of 2019)                         ...1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.Shahjahan                            ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying this Court to call for the records relating to C.C.No.1294 of 2020 on
                     the file of the Judicial Magistrate - II, Trichy in Crime No.1036 of 2019 on
                     the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioner
                     concerned.

                                          For Petitioner     : M/s.AL.Ganthimathi
                                          For R1             : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
                                                                Government Advocate (Crl.side)
                                          For R2             : Mr.J.Sulthan Basha
                                                               for M/s.Ajmal Associates


                     1/9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.O.P(MD)No.2760 of 2022




                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1294

of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Trichy in

Cr.No.1036 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit already the

entire bundle has been handed over to the petitioner. However, the

petitioner failed to engage any counsel on their behalf to appear before this

Court. Today, no one appeared in person or by new counsel.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused namely

Rajasekaran and the de facto complainant were employed together in the

position of the Commercial Inspector in Tiruchirappalli Division of the

Southern Railway. Whileso, the first accused had stolen a fifteen year old

signed blank cheque belonging to the de facto complainant and kept in his

possession. When the de facto complainant retired from service, he had

received a gratuity payment of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only).

Allegedly being aware of the same, the first accused fraudulently gain the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2760 of 2022

de facto complainant's money, had deposited the cheque in the savings

account of the petitioner. On such debiting of money from the de facto

complainant's account, he had approached the Bank Manager. On enquiry

with the petitioner, he had informed him that the money was deposited by

the first accused for the debts owned to the petitioner. Thereafter, the

concerned Officer reversed the transaction and froze the same, unilaterally.

It is also alleged that the first accused was in the habit of borrowing money

from several persons. There were 138 proceedings pending against him.

Further, since there has been no contact between the petitioner and the first

accused, they had committed this fraudulent acts together. The first accused

had committed an offence under Section 379 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC

and the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 420 r/w Section

34 of IPC.

4.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.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2760 of 2022

trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in

this case.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2760 of 2022

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2760 of 2022

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 with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2760 of 2022

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.1294 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate II, Trichy. 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.2760 of 2022

10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

Consequently connected miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P(MD) No.2084 of

2022 stands dismissed and Crl.M.P(MD) No.2085 of 2022 stands allowed.

19.04.2022 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No vsd