Madras High Court

R.Kannaiyan vs The Inspector Of Police on 5 September, 2022

                                                                                Crl.O.P.No. 17508 of 2022


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED      05.09.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.O.P.No.17508 of 2022
                                             and Crl.M.P.No.10907 of 2022

                     R.Kannaiyan                                                ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs

                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                        Central Crime Branch, Team 15,
                        Veppery, Chennai 600 007.

                     2.Zaiba Sultana                                            ... Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to quash the final report filed by the respondent in C.C.No.27 of 2022
                     on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Egmore, Allikulam.

                                          For Petitioner     : Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja

                                          For Respondents    : Mr.E.Raj Thilak for R1
                                                               Additional Public Prosecutor
                                                               Mr.M.Jaikumar for R2




                     Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     Crl.O.P.No. 17508 of 2022


                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of

2022 on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate No.I, Egmore,

Allikulam, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420,

465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) of IPC in Crime No.451 of 2011, as against

this petitioner.

2.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. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a

case in Crime No.451 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468,

471 r/w 120(b) of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken

cognizance in C.C.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the Special Metropolitan

Magistrate No.I, Egmore, Allikulam. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial

has been commenced and P.W.1 has already examined in cross.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 17508 of 2022

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

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 passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.

13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 17508 of 2022

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 17508 of 2022

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, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 17508 of 2022

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 petitioner 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.27 of 2022 in Crime No.451 of 2011 on the

file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate No.I, Egmore, Allikulam. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 17508 of 2022

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.