Madras High Court
Kathirvel @ Kathirvel Murugan vs The State Represented By on 24 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3802 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3802 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2780 & 2781 of 2022
Kathirvel @ Kathirvel Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Alankulam Police Station,
Thirunelveli District,
(Crime No.563 of 2020)
2. Pechimuthu ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records and quash the proceedings in SPL.CC.No.2 of 2022 on the file of
the Principal District Judge, Thirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
R1 Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3802 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.2 of
2022, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, thereby
taken cognizance for the offences under Section 379 IPC in Crime No. 563 of
2020, as against the petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2022, the accused persons
without any valid permission from the Government had stolen one unit of odai
sand in tractor. Hence, the first respondent registered a case against the
petitioner and others for the offences under Section 379 IPC and the same took
cognizance by the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli as Spl.C.C.No.2
of 2022.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is innocent and he had not committed any offence as alleged by the
prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in
Crime No. 563 of 2020 for the offences under Section 379 IPC, as against the
petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2022 on
the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. Hence he prayed to
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3802 of 2022
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3802 of 2022
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3802 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3802 of 2022
482 Cr.P.C.
9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2022, on the file of the learned Principal
District Judge, Tirunelveli. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds
before the trial Court. Considering the age of the petitioner, 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 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 a copy of this Order.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.02.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PNM
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.3802 of 2022
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Alankulam Police Station,
Thirunelveli District,
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3802 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3802 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2780 & 2781 of 2022
24.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
