Madras High Court
Rajaram vs The State Represented By on 29 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2022
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.1393 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1037 & 1038 of 2022
1.Rajaram
2.R.Gopinath ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai City.
In Crime No.48 of 2010. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Vanniyarajan ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet in
C.C.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
Court No.I, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban
For R – 1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 2 : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
Court No.I, Madurai, as against the petitioners.
2. The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the
first accused executed a sale deed in favour of the second
respondent by the registered sale deed, dated 27.03.1996 in
respect of the subject property. Thereafter, in respect of the same
subject property, the first accused along with second accused
executed the sale deed in favour of the second respondent
suppressing the earlier sale deed executed in favour of the second
respondent. Thereafter, the fist accused had filed a suit in
O.S.No.188 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Melur,
that the sale deed executed in favour of the second respondent as
null and void. Since the petitioners cheated the second respondent,
he lodged a complaint. Based on the said complaint, a case has
been registered in Crime No.48 of 2010 for the offences under
Sections 120(b), 423, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. After
investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same has been
taken of file in C.C.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2022
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the
the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
4. It is seen from the report submitted by the Finger Print
Bureau in Certificate No.07/DOC/SDFPB/MB/2019 opined that 8
ridge characteristics are found in the same relevant positions in both
the left thumb impression 'Q' and 'S'. Hence, the impressions
marked as 'Q' and 'S' are all identical with each other and related to
one and the same finger print of the same persons i.e, admitted left
thumb impression of the first accused. In pursuant to the said
report, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has
been taken cognizance by the trial Court.
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the first accused had no knowledge about the
execution of sale deed in favour of the second respondent, some
third party had executed sale deed in favour of the second
respondent, however, the Finger Print Bureau certified that both the
thumb impression in the sale deed executed in favour of the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2022
respondent as well as agreement for sale in favour of the second
respondent are one and the same.
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.
13.In view of the foregoing
discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside
the impugned order and restore the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2022
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; 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2022
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.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. The petitioners are at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering
the age of the petitioners, the personal appearance of the
petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a
counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2022
10. 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.1393 of 2022
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1393 of 2022
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
