Madras High Court
Dinakaran vs The State Represented By on 22 April, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7495 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7495 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.5114 and 5115 of 2022
1.Dinakaran
2.Dhamotharan
3.Sulaina
4.Jeyalingam ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Tirunelveli District.
(Cr.No.12 of 2019) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Marthandan ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.664 of 2021 on the file of the
Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli
insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7495 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.664 of
2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land
Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
2. The case of the prosecution is that it is claimed by the defacto
complainant that the property in Survey No.2350 situated in Perungudi Village,
Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District measuring to an extent of 11 cents
belongs to Vinayagar Temple and accordingly he has already filed a suit in
O.S.No.46 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor
against the 2nd and 3rd accused for relief of declaration. The said suit filed by
the defacto complainant was dismissed with an observation that the property is
a burial ground. While things being so, by claiming that the property belonged
to the father of the first accused, the first accused has sold the property to the
2nd and 3rd accused by registered sale deed dated 25.02.2013. The 4th and 5th
accused are the attesting witnesses in the said case. Thereafter, a complaint was
preferred by the 2nd respondent and that the above case came to be registered.
The case was investigated and final report was filed by the first respondent
police and that the same is taken cognizance by the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.664
of 2021 against all the accused persons including the petitioners herein for the
offences under Sections 423, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 109 and 420 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7495 of 2022
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by
the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case
in Cr.No.12 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 423, 467, 468, 471,
120(B), 109 and 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners and the same has been
taken cognizance in C.C.No.664 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special
Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli. Hence
he prayed to quash the same.
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7495 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7495 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7495 of 2022
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 C.C.No.664 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial
Magistrate, Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Tirunelveli. The petitioners
are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. 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.7495 of 2022
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
vsd
To
1.The Special Judicial Magistrate,
Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Tirunelveli 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.7495 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vsd
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7495 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.5114 and 5115 of 2022
22.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
