Renuka vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 8668 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8668 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Renuka vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 April, 2022

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.7558 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 5146 and 5147 of 2022

1. Renuka
2. Venkateshaprabhu ...Petitioners

Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Vadamadurai
Dindigul District

2. V.Sudha ...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records relating to the proceedings in CC No.119 of 2018 on the
file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur,
Dindigul District and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Baskaran
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.119 of 2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial

Magistrate, Vedasandur, Dindigul District

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

2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the fifth

accused/first petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on

23.01.2018. Further on 27.12.2014 the accused 2 to 9 attacked the defacto

complainant and also harassed the defacto complainant demanding additional

dowry. Hence the case came to be registered.

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.

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., wherein it is

held as follows:-

" 12.So far as the second ground is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 Central Bureau of Investigation 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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

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

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.

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

quash the proceedings in CC No.119 of 2018 on the file of the learned District

Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, Dindigul District . The petitioners

are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the

personal appearance of the petitioners are dispensed with and they shall be

represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the

petitioners 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 directed to complete the trial