Baskaran vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 8574 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8574 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Baskaran vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 April, 2022

                                                                                Crl.O.P(MD)No.6247 of 2020


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED : 25.04.2022

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                Crl.O.P(MD)No.6247 of 2020

                     1.Baskaran
                     2.Sivakumar                                   ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

                                                             Vs.

                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       Keelathuval Police Station,
                       Mudukulathur Taluk,
                       Ramanathapuram District.
                       (Cr.No.77 of 2013)                            ...1st Respondent/Complainant


                     2.Thennarasu                           ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.20
                     of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Mudukulathur and
                     quash the same as illegal.


                                      For Petitioners   : Mr.K.Muthuvai Ilayaraja

                                      For R1            : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                          Additional Public Prosecutor


                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.O.P(MD)No.6247 of 2020




                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.20

of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, as

against the petitioners.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's

daughter deceased Surya was studied 12th standard, there was a love affair

among the deceased and the first accused during travel in the bus. The

second respondent herein advised to his daughter to break the relationship

with the first accused as such she had stopped the relationship with the first

accused. So the petitioners herein compelled and harassed the said Surya to

continue the love affair with the first petitioner. More over they threatened

her with dire consequences by stating that they will publish bit-notice

regarding their relationship. Due to the harassment of the petitioners the

daughter of the second respondent committed suicide on 28.11.2013 at

about 4.30 p.m. in her house by taking poison. Therefore, the present

complaint came to be registered against the petitioners.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.6247 of 2020

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

the petitioners 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 Crime No.77 of 2013 for the offences under Sections

306, 506(i) of IPC r/w 4(B) of TNPWH Act 1998, as against the petitioners

and the same has been taken cognizance in PRC.No.20 of 2018 on the file

of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur. Hence, the petitioners

prayed to quash the same.

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

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., 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.6247 of 2020

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.6247 of 2020

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.6247 of 2020

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 petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.6247 of 2020

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

the proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Mudukulathur.

9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

25.04.2022

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/no vsd

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Mudukulathur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Keelathuval Police Station, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.