Palees vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 4113 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4113 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2022

Madras High Court

Palees vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 March, 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 03.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4123 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 2971and 2972 of 2022

Palees ...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police
Economic Offences Wing
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District

2. V.Daniel ...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in CC No. 50 of 2008 on the file of the
TNPID Court, Madurai District and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sankar

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

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

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to quash the

proceedings in CC No. 50 of 2008 on the file of the TNPID Court,

Madurai District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.06.2009 that all the

accused persons started running a financial establishment in the name

and style of Jenit Bankers and collected deposits from 184 depositors and

thereafter cheated them to the tune of Rs.54,13,196/- Hence the case

came to be registered.

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.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

the trial has been commenced and 114 witnesses have already been

examined and the case stands posted for examination of remaining

witnesses.

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

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 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

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

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

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

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 CC No. 50 of 2008 on the file of the TNPID

Court, Madurai District . The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the

grounds before the trial Court. However, taking into consideration 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,

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