A.Ramasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 8667 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8667 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2022

Madras High Court

A.Ramasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 April, 2022

                                                                 1

                                    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.7589 of 2022
                                                 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.5175 of 2022

                     A.Ramasundaram                                                    ...Petitioner


                                                                     Vs.

                     1. The Inspector of Police
                        Sessions Court Police Station,
                        Tiruchirapalli District

                     2. A.Siva Subramniay Pillai
                        Tahsildhar
                        Tiruchirapalli West                                            ...Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
                     call for the records pertaining to CC No.2142 of 2019 on the file of the learned
                     Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy and quash the charge sheet.


                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.D.Senthil

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

                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to quash the proceedings

in CC No.2142 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Trichy .

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

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.05.2014, 60 bundles of

free scheme Dhoti and saree was received on 28.02.2014 and there was

already 8 bundles of saree and 6 bundles of dhoti were in stock and therefore

68 bundles of saree and 6 bundles of dhoti were kept in middle room in

ground floor of taluk office and due to election code of conduct from

05.03.2014 the room was locked using two locks and duly sealed on

06.03.2014 and the keys were kept in the bureau in the Tahsidhar room by

keeping it in a separate cover. On 13.05.2014 from 11.00 am., onwards the

defacto complainant was engaged in making necessary arrangement for vote

counting process for Parliamentary election and left to his quarters adjacent to

Taluka officer by 01.00 hrs and instructed the jeep driver to inspect the office

premises. On 14.05.2014 at about 9.50 am., when the Head Quarters

Deputy Tahsildhar came to office the jeep driver has asked for any saree

which arrived earlier and the Head Quarters Tahsildhar has replied negatively

and the jeep driver stated that when he returned from Saranathan College

by 1.00 hrs in order to check the Taluk Office, he found that the outer gate

was left in unlock position and found some bundles were left in veranda and

when the Head Quarters Tahsildhar questioned him why he failed to inform

the same immediately the jeep driver replied that

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.

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

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 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.”

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

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 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.

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

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

quash the proceedings in CC No.2142 of 2019 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy . The petitioner is 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.

10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

Consequently connected miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P(MD) No.5175 of

2022 stands dismissed .