Madras High Court
Lawrance vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 April, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7802 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No. 5310 of 2022
1. Lawrance
2.Jeyanthan @ Narashimma Jainthan
3.Kala @ Mehala
4.Kittu @ Venkatakrishnan ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
VK Puram Police Station
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.45/2022)
2. Revathi ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.
45/2022 dated 04.02.2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Rajesh
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking direction to quash the proceedings
in Crime No.45/2022 dated 04.02.2022 on the file of the first respondent
police and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.02.2022, the petitioners
have attacked the defacto complainant, abused with filthy language and
threatened with dire consequences. Hence a complaint came to be registered
in Crime No.45 of 2022.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the date of
occurrence, the first petitioner was constructing a compound wall in front of
his house which was objected by the defacto complainant. At that time, the
defacto complainant and her father abused the first petitioner with filthy
language and attacked the second petitioner. When the same was questioned
by the petitioners, the present complaint came to be registered.
4. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in
this case.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides.
7. 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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. 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.”
9.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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"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 petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2022 on the file of the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,
pnn
police. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial
Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
11. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
27.04.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
pnn
To
1. The Inspector of Police, VK Puram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7802 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No. 5310 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
