Madras High Court
N.Nanthagopal vs Boopathi on 27 June, 2022
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
and
Crl.MP.Nos.8304, 8306, 8309, 8310, 8312, 8313, 8316,8321,8328,8330
of 2020
N.Nanthagopal ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20065 of 2020)
Dr.S.Padmavathi ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20066 of 2020)
K.Gomathi ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20068 of 2020)
K.Viswanathan ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20069 of 2020)
S.Padmavathi ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20072 of 2020)
Vs.
Boopathi ... Respondent
(in Crl.OP.Nos.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in S.T.C
No.311 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
Court,Paramathi and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Padmanabhan
For Respondent : No Appearance
(Notice Served)
COMMON O R D E R
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the
proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.311 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court, Paramathi, thereby taken cognizance for the offences
under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (herein
after referred as NI Act) as against the petitioners.
2. These petitioners have been arrayed as A5, A2, A7, A11 and
A9 in STC.No.311 of 2020 respectively on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Paramathi for the offences punishable under Sections
138 and 142 of N.I.Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
3. A perusal of the available records reveals that the respondent is
a Agriculturist and doing Real Estate Business. All the
petitioners/accused persons are the Trustees of the first accused. They are
running Polytechnic College viz., Venkatramana Polytechnic College at
Vellianai, Karur. It further reveals that all the trustees have jointly
approached the respondent on 10.04.2019 and borrowed a sum of
Rs.9,00,000/- for the improvement of the Trust. In order to repay the said
amount, the accused persons have issued cheque for a sum of
Rs.9,00,000/-. It was presented for collection and the same was returned
dishonoured for the reason that “ funds insufficient”. At the time of
issuance of cheque, they were Trustees of the first accused. Therefore,
the petitioners are liable to be held responsible for the offences under
Sections 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is
no absolute grounds to quash the complaint lodged by the respondent and
these petitions are liable to be dismissed.
4. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
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.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
has been taken cognizance by the Competent
Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled
for.”
6. 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.
..............
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
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.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.311 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi. However, the trial Court is directed
to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
8. Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
27.06.2022
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Vv
To
The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Paramathi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv
Crl.O.P.Nos.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and
20072 of 2020
and
Crl.MP.Nos.8304, 8306, 8309, 8310, 8312, 8313, 8316,8321,8328,8330
of 2020
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
