Valvarasan vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 4381 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4381 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2022

Madras High Court

Valvarasan vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 March, 2022

                                                                            Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4341 of 2021


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED : 07.03.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                             Crl.O.P(MD) No.4341 of 2022

                     Valvarasan                                                         ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs

                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                        Aiyamangalam Police Station
                        Trichy District

                     2.Raja @ Punuguraja                                        ...Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the entire records connected with the case in C.C. No.83
                     of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy
                     and quash the same as illegal.

                                          For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Malaikani

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




                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4341 of 2021


                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.83

of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy

2. The case of the prosecution is that 28.04.2014 at around 2.0

pm.,the 28.04.2014 at around 1.30 pm., the petitioner was riding his two

wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN 61 E 3172 in a rash and negligent manner and

hit on the sister of the defacto complainant and caused injuries, hence the

present 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 some of the witnesses have been

examined in this case.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4341 of 2021

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 original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4341 of 2021

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4341 of 2021

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, would not constitute the offence alleged. ..............

13. A look at the complaint filed by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4341 of 2021

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 C.C. No.83 of 2015 pending on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy The petitioner is at liberty to raise

all the grounds before the trial Court. 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.O.P(MDO.No. 4341 of 2021

10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

07.03.2022 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/no aav