Madras High Court
A.Murugan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
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.4910 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.2835 of 2020
A.Murugan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women's Police Station,
Sivaganga. ... Respondent/Complainant
2. Preethy ...Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to call for the records relating to the Chargesheet dated 26/08/2019
filed by the 1st respondent of PRC NO.56 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila
Court - Fast Track Court, Sivagangai, insofar as the petitioner is concerned
and quash the same.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.
56/2019 on the file of the Mahila Court-Fast Track Court, Sivagangai, thereby
taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 417, 294(b) and
376(A) of IPC, in Crime No.5 of 2019.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 forcibly had
physical relationship with the defacto complainant under the false promise of
marrying her. Then, the accused No.1 denied to marry her. Hence, she lodged
a complaint in that regard. The respondent police registered an FIR in Crime
No.5/2019 for the offence under Sections 417, 376(A), 323, 325 and 294(b)
of IPC and filed final report, which has been taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.
56/2019 on the file of the Mahila Court-Fast Track Court, Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
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. 5 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 417, 376(A), 323,
325 and 294(b) of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken
cognizance in P.R.C.No.56/2019 on the file of the Mahila Court-Fast Track
Court, Sivagangai. 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.4910 of 2020
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.4910 of 2020
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.4910 of 2020
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.4910 of 2020
9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash
the proceedings in P.R.C.No.56/2019 on the file of the Mahila Court-Fast
Track Court, Sivagangai. The trial Court is directed to complete the
committal proceedings within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Order and complete the trial within a period of six months,
thereafter.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women's Police Station,
Sivaganga.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4910 of 2020
26.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
