Madras High Court
K.Gopalakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21942 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21942 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.15464 of 2022
1.K.Gopalakrishnan
2.Manoj ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Eranial Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District.
(Crime No.806 of 2016)
2.Joys ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to charge
sheet in C.C.No.46 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Eraniel and quash the same as illegal as far as against this petitioners
concerned.
For Petitioner : M/s.A.Dharani
For R1 : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21942 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.46 of 2019 pending on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and quash the same.
2. It is evident from the records that FIR came to be registered in
Crime No.806 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC
and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and after completing
the investigation, the first respondent has laid the final report for the
offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and Section 187 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.46 of
2019 and is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing
for the first respondent would submit that after initial questioning, now
the case stands posted for examination of L.W.1 to L.W.5.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that there is no eye witness to the occurrence, that the deceased fell down
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21942 of 2022
from the bus through foot board and that therefore, Section 304(A) IPC
is not made out. The above aspects cannot gone into and is a matter for
trial.
5. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer 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., and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
"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.21942 of 2022
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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21942 of 2022
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.”
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case
of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & another has held 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21942 of 2022
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 the case on hand and as
such, the points raised by the petitioners cannot be considered by this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Considering the above and the legal position above referred, this
Court concludes that the Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21942 of 2022
9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of
the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.12.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
csm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21942 of 2022
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Eranial Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21942 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.15464 of 2022
Dated: 13.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
