Madras High Court
V.Veeramani vs R.Dhanasekar on 29 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 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.1237 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.908 & 909 of 2022
1.V.Veeramani
2.V.Tamilarasi
3.V.Rajan
4.V.Naveen
5.V.Anandh
6.S.Pappa @ Chokkammal
... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6
Vs.
R.Dhanasekar ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.1032 of 2019 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai for the alleged
offences under Sections 147, 337, 341, 447 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and
quash the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Muruga Poopathy
For Respondent : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.1032 of 2019 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, as against the petitioners.
2. The respondent preferred a complaint before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai stating that on 27.03.2019, when
the respondent supervised the construction work at his brother's
land, the petitioners 1 to 5 trespassed into the respondent's brother
land and threatened him with dire consequences and the petitioners
3 to 5 gave life threat to the respondent and his brother. The same
was reported before the police on 29.03.2019. The said complaint
has been taken on file in C.C.No.1032 of 2019 and charges were
framed against the petitioners under Sections 147, 337, 341, 447
and 506(ii) of I.P.C on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.VI, Madurai.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2022
4. Totally there are six accused, in which the petitioners are
arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 6. Though there are specific
allegations made as against the petitioners 1 to 5/Accused Nos.1 to
5, there is no specific allegation and overt act as against the sixth
petitioner/sixth accused to attract the offences under Sections 147,
337, 341, 447 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. However, the trial Court has
taken cognizance as against all the accused persons. Insofar as
accused Nos.1 to 5 are concerned, there are specific allegations
against them.
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., in which 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2022
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2022
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.”
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, wherein, it has been
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2022
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 learned counsel for the petitioners as
against the petitioners 1 to 5 cannot be considered by this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings as against the petitioners 1 to 5 in C.C.No.1032 of
2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.
The petitioners 1 to 5 are at liberty to raise all the grounds before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2022
the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and also considering the age of the petitioners 1 to 5, the personal
appearance of the petitioners 1 to 5 is dispensed with and they shall
be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.
However, the petitioners 1 to 5 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.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed insofar as the petitioners 1 to 5/Accused Nos.1 to
5 are concerned.
10.Insofar as sixth petitioner/Accused No.6 is concerned,
there is no allegation and specific overt act as against him, this
Criminal Original Petition is allowed in respect of the sixth
petitioner/Accused No.6 and the proceedings in C.C.No.1032 of
2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai is
quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2022
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed
insofar as the sixth petitioner/Accused No.6 is concerned.
12.In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Original
Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
29.03.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2022
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.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI,
Madurai.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1237 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1237 of 2022
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
