Madras High Court
Manikandan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 March, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD).No. 5190 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD) No.5190 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.3644 and 3646 of 2020
1. Manikandan
2. Ramar
3. Lakshmanan ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Theppakulam Police Station
Madurai City, Madurai District
2.Arun Pandi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in CC No.177 of 2022
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai for the offences
under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Balamurugan
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No. 5190 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.177
of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there is a vacant land in between
the house of the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. While so on
18.06.2020 at about 9.30 pm., while the defacto complainant was standing
in the disputed vacant land along with his family members the petitioners
abused the defacto complainant and also beaten her with wooden log and
caused injuries.
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No. 5190 of 2022
5. Heard Mr.S.Balamurugan learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the first 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., wherein it is held 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No. 5190 of 2022
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
very fact that the High Court, in this case, went
into the most minute details, on the allegations
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No. 5190 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No. 5190 of 2022
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 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 CC No.177 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all
the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No. 5190 of 2022
trial within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of copy of this
Order.
10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
21.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/no
aav
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai
2. The Inspector of Police,
Theppakulam Police Station
Madurai City, Madurai District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No. 5190 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
aav
Crl.O.P(MD)No.5190 of 2022
21.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
