Madras High Court
Mohan vs The State Represented By on 29 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15186 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15186 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.8134 & 8135 of 2021
Mohan ... Petitioner/Accused No.6
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Superintendent of Police,
Vanniyampatti Vilakku,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vanniyampatti Vilakku Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(In Crime No.73 of 2021). ... Respondents 1 & 2/Complainant
3.Manikandan ... 3rd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records of the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2021 on
the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Srivilliputhur
insofar as the petitioner and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Edin Brough
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 3 : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15186 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST
(POA) Act, Srivilliputhur, as against the petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2021 when the
defacto complainant went to his place at Chathirapatti with one
Balamurugan, all the accused persons abused his caste name in
filthy language. A.1 tried to assault him with sword. All the other
accused persons assaulted the defacto complainant with stones and
damaged his two wheeler. Based on the complaint lodged by the
third respondent, the second respondent registered a case in Crime
No.73 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341,
294(b), 323, 324, 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s),
3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance Act, 2015. After
investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same has been
taken of file in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court
for SC/ST (POA) Act, Srivilliputhur.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15186 of 2021
respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent.
4. 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 the Honourable Supreme Court 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
Cr.P.C. proceedings.
13.In view of the foregoing
discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15186 of 2021
the impugned order and restore the
aforementioned complaint case to its
original file for being proceeded with on
merits in accordance with law.
5. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15186 of 2021
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.”
6. 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, wherein the Honourable
Supreme Court held 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.
..............
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15186 of 2021
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.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the
Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Srivilliputhur. The petitioner is at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15186 of 2021
trial within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of copy
of this Order.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
29.03.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
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.15186 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
To
1.The Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act,
Srivilliputhur.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Vanniyampatti Vilakku,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vanniyampatti Vilakku Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.15186 of 2021
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
