Madras High Court
Prabha vs The State Represented By on 29 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3164 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3164 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2367 & 2369 of 2022
Prabha ... Petitioner/
Accused No. 2
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CCB Police Station,
Trichy City.
(Crime No.29 of 2016) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. Sridhar ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records in relating to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.1083 of 2021 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Raja Durai
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1
Mr.N.Ananda Kumar for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3164 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned
charge sheet in C.C.No.1083 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Trichy.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent lodged a
complaint alleging that the first accused is running an Institute, namely,
Bharathiyar Uni School of Development Education. The second accused, who
is none other than the wife of the first accused, is working as Assistant
Professor in Bharathithasan University [constituent], Model College for
Women. The first accused informed the defacto complainant that if he gave
Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) they will arrange for a
Government Job in Bharathithasan University [constituent], Model College.
Believing their words, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) to the accused persons on 01.06.2015. The first
accused issued an appointment order and thereafter, the defacto complainant
came to understand about the bogus order issued by the first accused and
cheated him. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered a
case in Crime No. 29 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471,
420 IPC. The first respondent, after completion of investigation, filed the final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3164 of 2022
report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1083 of 2021 for the
offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, in which, the petitioner is
arrayed as second accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, there is no
specific overtact as against the petitioner / wife of the first accused. The only
allegation is that the petitioner also accompanied with the first accused at the
time of receiving the money. She is working in Bharathithasan University
[constituent], Model College for Women at Perambalur, during the period of
15.09.2014 to 24.06.2015. The petitioner got married to the first accused on
01.02.2009 and due to their wedlock, they gave birth to their daughter. During
their matrimonial life, they created a Trust in the name of Sri Sai Educational &
Charitable Trust, vide the Trust deed, on 19.12.2013, in which, the petitioner is
one of the trustees. The above execution of the trust was made without
knowledge of the petitioner and she did not even sign the same. Therefore,
there was a misunderstanding between them and as such, the petitioner filed a
Divorce Petition in H.M.O.P.No.44 of 2018 before the learned Principle Sub
Court, Trichy, as against the first accused and obtained the decree of divorce.
Therefore, there is no nexus between the petitioner and the first accused and
she is in no way connected with the alleged offences committed by the first
accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3164 of 2022
4. A perusal of the statements and documents produced by the
prosecution would show that there are ample evidence as against the petitioner
to attract the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The divorcé
decree obtained by the petitioner is an ex-parte decree. Further, when the
petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in Bharathithasan University
[constituent], Model College, both the accused created a Trust in the name of
the Sri Sai Educational & Charitable Trust in which the petitioner is one of the
trustees. In all, from the statements, it is seen that there is a specific overtact as
against the petitioner.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3164 of 2022
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.
6. 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.3164 of 2022
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.”
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3164 of 2022
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.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.1083 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Trichy. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a
period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.03.2022
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.3164 of 2022
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Trichy.
2. Inspector of Police,
Puliyampatti Police Station,
Thoothukudi 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.3164 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3164 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2367 & 2369 of 2022
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
