Madras High Court
Julian Cyril vs The State Represented By on 22 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5583 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.5583 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3198 & 3199 of 2021
Julian Cyril ... Petitioner/
Accused No.2
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Anjugramam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District. ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. Edwin Gribin Rajan ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash
the private complaint in C.C.No.88 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1
Mr.D.Vijay Antony for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5583 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the private
complaint in C.C.No.88 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.III, Nagercoil.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's brother / Accused
No.1 attempted to obstruct the pathway by laying iron rod and removed the
survey stones on 14.01.2012. When the defacto complainant inquired about the
same, all three accused (the petitioner along with his mother and brother)
together abused the defacto complainant in filthy words, demanded for selling
the property in their favour and causing criminal intimidation (threatening).
There are two different time recorded for the alleged occurrence in FIR (09:00
Hrs) and in defacto complainant's protest petition witness (10:00 Hrs). Hence
the time of alleged occurrence is inconclusive, questionable and in indecisive.
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. Without any base, the first respondent police had registered a case
in Crime No.840 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and
506(i) IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in
C.C.No.88 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Nagercoil. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5583 of 2021
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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 for the petitioner and learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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., 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5583 of 2021
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 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.(MD)No.5583 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
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...................."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5583 of 2021
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.88 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all
the grounds before the trial Court. 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, questioning under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. 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.
10. In fact, third accused / mother of the petitioner had filed the quash
petition before this Court in Crime No.12685 of 2016 and this Court by order,
dated 28.01.2020 quash the entire proceedings as against the third accused /
mother of the petitioner. While allowing the petition, deserved all the benefit of
this order will not enure in favour of the petitioner’s son. The trial Court is
directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5583 of 2021
11. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
22.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
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 Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Anjugramam Police Station,
Kanyakumari 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.5583 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.5583 of 2021
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3198 & 3199 of 2021
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
