K.Nagaraj vs State Rep By Its
2022 Latest Caselaw 9849 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9849 Mad
Judgement Date : 13 June, 2022

Madras High Court

K.Nagaraj vs State Rep By Its on 13 June, 2022

                                                                             Crl.O.P.No. 15221 of 2020


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED:13.06.2022

                                                       CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                           CRL.O.P.No.15221 of 2020
                                                      and
                                         CRL.MP.Nos.5803 & 5804 of 2020

                     1.K.Nagaraj
                     2. K. Mariyappan
                     3.Muniyammal                                      ... Petitioners/A1 to A3

                                                           Vs
                     1. State Rep by its
                        The Inspector of Police
                        Adhiamankottai Police Station,
                        Dharmapuri,
                        Cr.No.320 of 2016.

                     2. K. Ganesan
                     ....Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records in CC.No.282 of 2016 on the file of the
                     learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri, and quash the same.

                                         For Petitioners   : Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal

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

                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    Crl.O.P.No. 15221 of 2020


                                                               Mr.V.Sakkarapani for R2
                                                           ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.282 of

2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri,

thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and

506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.320 of 2016, as against these petitioners.

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

petitioners are close relatives and it is alleged that due to land dispute

between them, the petitioners are alleged to have attacked the defacto

complainant with the deadly weapons in which he sustained grievous

injuries and also threatened him with dire consequences.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that

the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police

registered a case in Crime No.320 of 2016 for the offences under Sections

294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, as against these petitioners and the same has

been taken cognizance in C.C.No.282 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri. Hence, they prayed to quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 15221 of 2020

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 Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Sakkarapani, 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 jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 15221 of 2020

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 15221 of 2020

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.”

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 15221 of 2020

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 15221 of 2020

points raised by the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the

petitioners and defacto complainant are close relatives, the occurrence for

two complaints are one and the same and also the trial court is one and same

in this case and in Crl.OP.No.12735 of 2017, trial court is directed to take

up the cases and complete the trial jointly.

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

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.282 of 2016 in Crime No.320 of 2016 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri. The petitioners are at