Madras High Court
Shankar vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 28 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2504 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2504 of 2021
1.Shankar
2.Veerapandi
3.Karuppasamy
4.R.Mariyaraj ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.
2.State rep., by
The Inspector of Police,
Naalatinputhur Police Station,
Tuticorin District.
(In Crime No.117 of 2017)
3.Seenivasan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,to call for
the records in connection with charge sheet in PRC.No.52 of 2018 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District and to
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.t.Sasidharan Tamil Kani
For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R3 : Mr.P.Banuprasath
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2504 of 2021
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in
PRC.No.52 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.1,
Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District .
2.On 07.05.2017 the defacto complainant went to his relative function
through his vehicle. When the defacto complainant parked his vehicle in a
sideway from the road, the petitioners restrained him and abused in filthy
language and also damaged the vehicle. Hence, the defacto complainat lodged
a complaint against the petitioners and the same was registered in Crime NO.
118 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 297(b) and 506(ii) IPC
and Section 3 of Tamilnadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)
Act, 1992. thereafter, charge sheet has been filed by respondent police in PRC
No.52 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2504 of 2021
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.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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2504 of 2021
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.
6.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2504 of 2021
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.”
7.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 offence alleged.
..............
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2504 of 2021
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.
` 8.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in PRC.No.52 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all
the grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance of the
petitioners is 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 within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2504 of 2021
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with liberty
to the parties to approach this Court, if they settle the issue amicably.
28.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmk
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.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Naalatinputhur Police Station,
Tuticorin District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2504 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,
rmk
Crl.O.P(MD).No.2504 of 2021
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
