T.Sudalai vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 5781 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5781 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2022

Madras High Court

T.Sudalai vs The Inspector Of Police on 22 March, 2022

                                                                              Crl.O.P(MD).No.3428 of 2022

                                    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.3428 of 2022
                                           and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.2542 and 2543 of 2022

                     T.Sudalai                                                    ...Petitioner

                                                                   Vs.

                     1. The Inspector of Police
                        Kurumbur Police Station,
                        Thoothukudi District.

                     2.Dheivanai                                                  ...Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
                     call for the records of the impugned C.C.No.159 of 2021 on the file of the
                     Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikundam and quash the same as illegal in so far
                     as the petitioner.


                                        For Petitioner       : Mr.V.Angusammy

                                        For R1               : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
                                                               Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                              ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to call for the records of

the impugned C.C.No.159 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,

Srivaikundam and quash the same as illegal in so far as the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.3428 of 2022

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.01.2019 at about 11 a.m.,

the defacto complainant's son, Subbiah and Muthuraja have attacked the

petitioner by wooden log and also snatched 3 soverings of gold chain. On the

very same day, the petitioner has given a complaint against them, but the first

respondent has not registered FIR and by getting false complaint from them

registered a case in FIR No.11 of 2019 against the petitioner.

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 Government Advocate(Crl.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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.3428 of 2022

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

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.3428 of 2022

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.”

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;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.3428 of 2022

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 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 S.T.C.No.159 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate Court, Srivaikundam. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the

grounds before the trial Court. However, 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