Madras High Court

Karthick vs State Rep. By on 30 March, 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 30.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1185 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.849 & 850 of 2022

Karthick ...Petitioner

Vs.

1. State Rep. by
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
K.Pudur Police Station,
Madurai District.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
K.Pudur Police Station,
Madurai District.

3. Sivagami ...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records relating to the proceeding in Special S.C.No.118 of 2019
pending on the file of the III Additional District Court (PCR), Madurai and
quash the same against the petitioner concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sakthikumaran

For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
No.1 & 2 Government Advocate

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

in Special S.C.No.118 of 2019 pending on the file of the III Additional District

Court (PCR), Madurai

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2018 in the afternoon

one Abinesh son of the defacto-complainant along with his friends were

training the bull for Jallikattu festival in Uthangudi and during such training

practice, the bull was let out and the bull attacked one Dinesh (A1) and

caused blood Injury in his legs and seeing this at about 17.30 hrs on the same

day A1 along with other named accused persons came to the house of the

defacto-complainant and threw the household Utensil and attacked their cow

and caused injury to it and spoke un-parliamentary words and threatened for

dire consequences. However, the complaint came to filed on 07.03.2019.

Subsequently, Charge sheet came to be filed on 12.06.2019 against one

Dinesh @ Pattabi, Karthick (petitioner herein), Veeramani, Praveen,

Dharmalingam and Sankaiah for the alleged offence u/s 147, 427, 447, 506(i)

of IPC and 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015. I submit that

the allegations as per the final report, it is alleged that on 16.12.2018 at

about 4.00 PM, the son of the complainant viz., Pandiarajan @ Pandu @

Abinesh was training his bull for Jallikattu and during such time Dinesh @

Pattabi (A1) try to catch the bull and he suffered an injury in the right leg and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

out of which there was a quarrel arose between the accused persons and the

complainant's son and the accused persons used un-parliamentary words and

threw the household utensils and threatened for dire consequences.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that

the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been

examined in this case.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides.

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.”

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.

` 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to

quash the proceedings in Special S.C.No.118 of 2019 pending on the file of

the III Additional District Court (PCR), Madurai . 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