Madras High Court
Selin vs The State on 21 March, 2022
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
&
CRL MP(MD). No.2151 of 2021
1. Selin
2. Bala Krishnan
3. Jerin
4. Rajini ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State
Sub Inspector of Police,
S.S Colony Police Station,
Madurai.
(In Crime No.1288 of 2019)
2. Thirupathi ... Respondents
PRAYER :- This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C.to call for the records in C.C.No.233 of 2020 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai and quash the same as devoid of
merits.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
R1 Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.
233 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai,
thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(a),
4(2)(c), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and
294(b), 506(2) of IPC, in Crime No.1288 of 2019, as against the
petitioners.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on getting information that the
accused persons were indulging in prostitution at “Sree Shakthi
Ayurvedha” and in this regard the first respondent police has registered
the case in Crime No.1288 of 2019, as against the accused persons for
the offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and 294(b), 506(2) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners are innocents and they had not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the second
respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1288 of 2019 for the
offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and 294(b), 506(2) of IPC, as
against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in
C.C.No.233 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Madurai. Hence, prayed to quash the same.
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 both sides and perused the materials available on record.
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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
" 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
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 taken cognizance by the Competent
Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled
for.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
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
appellant would show that the appellant had
incorporated the ingredients necessary for
prosecuting the respondents for the offences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
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 petitioners 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.233 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. The petitioners are 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 a copy of this Order.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is also closed.
21.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
TO
1. The State
Sub Inspector of Police,
S.S Colony Police Station,
Madurai.
(In Crime No.1288 of 2019)
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD). No.3871 of 2021
&
CRL MP(MD). No.2151 of 2021
Date : 21/03/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
