Madras High Court
Ammaiyappan vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5603 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.5603 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3983 & 3985 of 2022
Ammaiyappan ... Petitioner/
Accused No.2
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Karur,
Karur District. ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. M.P.Arumugam ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records relating to the Charge Sheet, dated 16.03.2017 filed in C.C.No.276
of 2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side)
for R.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5603 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet ,
dated 16.03.2017 filed in C.C.No.276 of 2019, on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one M.P.Arumugam, son of
Palaniappa Nadar got power of attorney, dated 10.02.1999 from P.Arumugam
son of Palaniappa Mudaliyar to sell his land in Thanthoni Village in m.G.r.682
Ac.2.59 ½ cents and Survey No.683 Ac.1.00 from 3 Ac.75 cents. He sold it to
one Ranjitham, wife of V.Thangaraj, Aravakuruchi 1Ac.29 ¾ cents in 5.19 Ac
in Survey No.682 by a sale deed, dated 25.03.1999. It is alleged that one
Annadurai, son of Palaniappa Gounder (A10) with help of the witnesses he
prepared a fake sale deed, dated 07.04.1990. Further, that Annadurai by a
forged document, dated 05.06.2010 prepared a cancellation deed of the
aforesaid sale deed, dated 25.03.1999. He gave the alleged complaint against
named 10 persons, who were involved in execution of the aforesaid document
including one Murugesan, Sub-Registrar, Mela Karur Sub-Registrar's office,
who colluded with the persons in registering those alleged forged documents.
Further, the defacto complainant alleged that Annadurai, who prepared a forged
cancellation of lease deed, dated 04.04.2002 in the name of one R.Natarajan.
Further, one Bashir and his wife Aayisha Shami by means of alleged sale deed,
dated 13.12.2002 has constructed a house in the aforesaid land sold to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5603 of 2022
Ranjitham. A complaint has given to District Crime Branch on 04.04.2015 and
the respondent Police enquired and did not register the complaint, since it is
purely a civil dispute. But on application before the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Karur, a direction is given. On that basis, the FIR came to be registered
against named 10 persons.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the respondent
Police registered an FIR on 07.11.2015 against named 10 persons. The
respondent police at the first instance enquired upon the complaint and did not
register the complaint since, they came to the conclusion that it is purely a civil
dispute. But only on the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Karur, FIR is registered. Even after registering the FIR, the respondent Police
did not proceed with the investigation. Their attitude shows that they are
lethargic in conducting the investigation.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) submitted
that already the trial had commenced and so far the prosecution have examined
P.W.1 to 3 herein and the case was posted for further examination of witnesses
of prosecution.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as far as the
petitioner is concerned, he is a senior citizen and he is only father of the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5603 of 2022
accused. The first accused is now died.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. 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.(MD)No.5603 of 2022
8. 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
taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is
completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
9. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5603 of 2022
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...................."
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5603 of 2022
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.276 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Karur. 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 of receipt of a
copy of this Order.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
25.03.2022
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5603 of 2022
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Karur, Karur 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.5603 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.5603 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3983 & 3985 of 2022
25.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
