Madras High Court
Akila vs The State Represented By on 7 February, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos. 1894 and 1896 of 2022
1.Akila
2.Manikandan
3.Vijayakumar @ Vibinesh
4.Jeyalakshmi
5.Nirmal Kumar ...Petitioners/
Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 & 7
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Karur, Karur District.
(Crime No.3 of 2013)
2.B.Vanitha ...Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.167 of
2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, Karur District as
against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Deepak
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.
167 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur,
Karur District, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections
120-B, 420, 416, 417, 465, 468, 471 IPC @ 120-B, 420, 419, 468, 471
r/w 109 IPC in Crime No.3 of 2013, as against the petitioners.
2.The case of the prosecution is that A1/Parasuraman had obtained
a property through Power Deed in the year 2002, then, the property was
divided as housing plots. The defacto complainant/Vanitha had
purchased 1200 square feet of land in the lay-out of A1/Parasuraman vide
document No.1567/2005, dated 2012.2005, registered with the Velliyanai
Sub Registrar Office. After that, A1/Parasuraman had made A2/Akila to
impersonate as the defacto complainant/Vanitha and had created a forged
Power of Attorney and registered the same in Document No.803/2008,
dated 29.12.2008 before the Sub Registrar Office, Lalgudi. Further, the
said property was sold in favour of the wife of A1/Parasuraman, by name
Jansi Rani vide Document No.2869/2011, dated 09.08.2011. When the
defacto complainant/Vanitha came to know about the alleged forgery, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
accused had cancelled the Sale Deed executed in favour of Jansi Rani,
W/o. Parasuraman (A1) vide Document No.3278/2011, dated 12.09.2011
and the forged Power Deed dated 21.09.2011, was cancelled through
Document No.320/2011.
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. Without any base, the first
respondent police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2013 for the
offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 416, 417, 465, 468, 471 IPC @ 120-
B, 420, 419, 468, 471 r/w 109 IPC , as against the petitioners and the
same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 167 of 2014 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, Karur District. Hence he prayed
to quash the same.
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 both sides and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
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 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
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
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) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
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 C.C.No.167 of 2014 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, karur District. The petitioners are at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age
of the petitioners, the personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed
with and the petitioners 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 nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
07.02.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
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.
To:
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Karur, Karur District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lr
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2538 of 2022
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
