Madras High Court

J.Domnic vs State Rep By Its on 27 June, 2022

                                                                              Crl.OP.No.15501 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.No.15501 of 2020
                                                          and
                                                Crl.MP.No.5907 of 2020

                     J.Domnic                                                     ... Petitioner


                                                             Vs.
                     1.State rep by its
                       Inspector of Police,
                       F3 Nungambakkam Police Station,
                       Chennai.
                     2. Saravana Muthu
                        (R2 is impleaded as per order
                         in Crl.MP.No.7745 of 2020
                         in Crl.OP.No.15501 of 2020
                         dated 07.02.2020)                                 ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
                     Code of Criminal Procedure, to pass an order quashing the proceedings in
                     so far as the petitioner is concerned in PRC.No.126 of 2019 pending on
                     the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.




                                     For Petitioner    : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar

                     1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                Crl.OP.No.15501 of 2020

                                        For Respondents` : Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
                                                           for R1
                                                            Mr.D.Sivaram

                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section

482 Cr.P.C seeking orders to quash the proceedings in so far as the

petitioner is concerned in PRC.No.126 of 2019 pending on the file of the

learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was

working as an Account Manager in a movie company and on 23.08.2016

at about 9 pm while he was walking near Kodambakkam bridge to reach

Railway Station, one unknown person had come in an auto and attacked

the defacto complainant with wooden log on his face, head and cheek,

due to which, the defacto complainant fell unconscious and his co-worker

had come and admitted him in the hospital.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.15501 of 2020

petitioner has been implicated as an accused only on the confession

statement of the other accused persons, as even according to the

prosecution, the petitioner has no specific overt act. There is absolutely

no material to attract the offences as alleged by the prosecution.

4. A perusal of the available records and the statement recorded

under Section 161 of Cr.P.C reveals that the first accused has

misappropriated funds which belongs to the office/movie company.

Thereafter, all the accused persons/A1 to A7 conspired to do away the

defacto complainant. The petitioner herein/A7 arranged money to do

away the defacto complainant. That apart, A7/ the petitioner herein

attacked the defacto complainant with iron rod. There are specific

overtacts as against the petitioner to attract the offences punishable under

Sections 147, 349, 307 and 506(i) of IPC read with 149 and 109 of IPC

whatever the contradictions found in the statement recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C and other grounds raised by the petitioner are

misappropriation of law and there should be an opportunity gives to the

account to enjoy the fruit of the trial before the trial court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.15501 of 2020

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the

submissions made by both counsel, this Court finds no merits to quash

the complaint lodged by the second respondent and this petition is liable

to be dismissed.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.15501 of 2020

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.15501 of 2020

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 embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.15501 of 2020

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

quash the proceedings in PRC No.126 of 2019 on the file of the learned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.15501 of 2020

XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The personal

appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with. However, the trial Court

is directed to complete the trial within a period of seven months from the

date of receipt of copy of this Order.

10. Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.