Madras High Court
M.Sadhasivam vs The Inspector Of Police on 26 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.11365 of 2021
M.Sadhasivam ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Virudhunagar.
Crime No.2/2014
2. R.Subbaiah ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to Quash the impugned charge sheet in C.C No.14/2020 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar in Crime.No.2/2014
filed by R1.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Kannan
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
For R2 : Mr.A.Mohan
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C No.
14/2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar,
thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 408, 419, 420,
465, 468, 471 and 477(A) of IPC, in Crime.No.2/2014, as against the
petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that petitioner forged the signature of
Shanmugavel Chettiar and M.P.Seetharaman and cheated the Education
Department. Further, he made wrong entries about the total number of
students in the register which maintained in the SC ST Government Boys
Hostel and thereby, he swindled the tax payer's money. Hence, the respondent
police registered FIR in Crime.No.2/2014 for the offences under Sections
406, 408, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477(A) of IPC, as against the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is innocent and he had not committed any offence as alleged by
the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case
in Crime No.2/2014 for the offences under Sections 406, 408, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 and 477(A) of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been
taken cognizance in C.C No.14/2020 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
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.
` 9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
the proceedings in C.C No.14/2020 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar. 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 a copy of this Order.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
26.04.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lr
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Virudhunagar
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20148 of 2021
26.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
