Rajeshkannan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 2499 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2499 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2022

Madras High Court

Rajeshkannan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 14 February, 2022

                                                             1

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 14.02.2022

                                                         CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                          Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3093 of 2022
                                  and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 2312 and 2315 of 2022

                     Rajeshkannan                                                ...Petitioner


                                                                 Vs.

                     1. The Sub Inspector of Police
                        Paramakudi Town Police Station
                        Paramakudi
                        Ramanathapuram District

                     2. Thandabani                                               ...Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
                     praying to call for the records relating to the charge sheet laid by the
                     respondent in S.T.C.No.2481 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial
                     Magistrate Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District and Quash the
                     same in so far as the petitioner.
                                  For Petitioner         : M/s.Prahalad Ravi B

                                  For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                  No.1 to 3         Additional Public Prosecutor




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                              2

                                                           ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to quash the

proceedings in S.T.C.No.2481 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The second respondent lodged a complaint aainst the petitioner

in the capacity of cashier of Naveen Bakery. The case of the prosecution

is that on 18.11.2018 at about 2.50 pm.,when he was in the shop, the

defacto complainant abused him in filthy language and also threatened

as to why he informed the owner for sending petition against the shop.

Further he informed the owner Ramu that he cannot do anything against

him for writing petition against him shop and asked his cashier to

behave properly. The first respondent though the occurrence was said to

have taken place on 18.11.2018 but the complaint was lodged only on

25.11.2018 belatedly.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any

offence as alleged by the prosecution.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides.

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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

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 view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to

quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.2481 of 2019 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District . The

petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

However, 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 charges, questioning under Section 313