Madras High Court
Jeyaraman vs The State Represented By on 7 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.10195 & 10197 of 2021
Jeyaraman ... Petitioner/Accused No.2
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
DCB Police Station,
Madurai District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Rajarajan ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.8 of 2021
on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases), Madurai, insofar as the
petitioner is concerned and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Palanisamy
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravind
Government Advocate
For R – 2 : Mr.K.Mahendran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.8 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate
(Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases), Madurai,
as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had
purchased a land in Survey No.184/2B measuring an extent of 0.23
hectare from one Mohammed Abbas/the first accused and 6 others
by a registered document in Document No.1521 of 2016, dated
07.09.2016. While so, the second respondent had made a complaint
before the first respondent as if the petitioner and the first accused
had cheated the mother of the defacto complainant by creating and
forging the documents resulting in filing of the F.I.R in Crime No.33
of 2018 on the file of the first respondent for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 120(B) I.P.C. The first
respondent filed the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.8 of 2021
against the petitioner on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate
(Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases), Madurai.
Challenged the impugned charge sheet, the present petition is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser and he has absolutely
no knowledge about the oral agreement between the first accused
and the defacto complainant. Hence, he prayed to quash the
charge-sheet.
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 for the petitioner,
the the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for
the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
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 petitioner cannot be considered by
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. In fact, after purchasing the subject property belonged to
the defacto complainant from the first accused, when the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
accused about to take possession, there was objection by the
second respondent and as such, the petitioner also lodged a
complaint before the Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station. It
shows that the petitioner without even verifying the property with
regard to who is in possession and enjoyment of the said property
and after verifying all the documents, he had purchased the
properrty from the first accused. That apart, the second respondent
made specific allegation that the petitioner colluded with the first
accused and conspired to purchase the subject property only to
cheat the second respondent. Therefore, prima facie, there are
materials available to attract the offence as alleged by the first
respondent.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2021 on the file of the
Special Judicial Magistrate (Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land
Grabbing Cases), Madurai. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
grounds before the trial Court. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
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 twelve months from the date of receipt of copy of
this Order.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
07.02.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18490 of 2021
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
DCB Police Station,
Madurai 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.18490 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.18490 of 2021
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
