Umer vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 8780 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8780 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Umer vs The Inspector Of Police on 26 April, 2022

                                                                 1

                                    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.7746 of 2022
                                          and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 5284 and 5286 of 2022

                     Umer                                                              ...Petitioner


                                                                     Vs.

                     1. The Inspector of Police
                        Tharuvaikulam Police Station
                        Thoothukudi District


                     2. Vazeer Ahamed                                                  ...Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
                     call for the records and quash the proceedings in SC No. 3 of 2010 on the file
                     of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District


                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja

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

                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to quash the proceedings

in SC No. 3 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi

District .

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

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to some civil dispute

between the second respondent and A1, 10 days prior to the occurrence there

was a wordy quarrel, as a result there was a strong enmity, due to which on

01.06.2006 at about 8.00 pm., while the second respondent was on the way

to his house, the petitioner along with other accused unlawfully assembled

together with deadly weapons and attacked the defacto complainant with

deadly weapons, due to which he sustained injuries . Further A5 was found in

possession of country made bomb which fell on the sand but not exploded.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is innocent and he has 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., as follows:- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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

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 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)

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

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.

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

quash the proceedings in SC No. 3 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court,

Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District . The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the

grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance of the

petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after

filing appropriate application. However, the petitioner 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 within a period of two months from the date