Madras High Court

Varadharajan vs The State Represented By on 7 September, 2022

                                                                                    Crl.O.P.No. 21073 of 2022
                                                                        and Crl.MP.Nos.13740 & 13741 of 2022




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 07.09.2022

                                                         CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.O.P.No.21073 of 2022
                                                         and
                                           Crl.MP.Nos.13740 & 13741 of 2022

                Varadharajan                                                            ... Petitioner
                                                            Vs
                1. The State represented by
                   Sub-Inspector of Police,
                   Pudu Nagar, Cuddalore.
                   (Crime No.456/2015)

                2. Sumathy
                                                                                         ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,

                praying to call for the records in C.C.No.17 of 2016 on the file of II Judicial

                Magistrate, Cuddalore and quash the same.


                                   For Petitioner     : Mr.Murugan

                                   For Respondent     : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                        Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
                                                           *****




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 7
                                                                                  Crl.O.P.No. 21073 of 2022
                                                                      and Crl.MP.Nos.13740 & 13741 of 2022




                                                      ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.17 of

2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore, thereby taken

cognizance for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 427, 353 and 506(i) of

IPC r/w under Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 2002, in Crime No.456 of 2015, as

against the 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.456 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 427, 353

and 506(i) of IPC r/w under Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 2002, as against the

petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 17 of 2016 on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore and the trial is pending

for the past six years. There is no progress in the trial. Hence, he prayed to

quash the same.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

petitioner is filing one petition after another and therefore, the trial is pending.

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

Crl.O.P.No. 21073 of 2022 and Crl.MP.Nos.13740 & 13741 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 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

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

Crl.O.P.No. 21073 of 2022 and Crl.MP.Nos.13740 & 13741 of 2022

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

Crl.O.P.No. 21073 of 2022 and Crl.MP.Nos.13740 & 13741 of 2022

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 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 and the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this Court is not inclined to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.17 of 2016 in Crime No.456 of 2015 on the file of the

learned Judicial Metropolitan-II, Cuddalore. The petitioner is at liberty to raise

all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age of the petitioner,

the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be

represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However,

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

Crl.O.P.No. 21073 of 2022 and Crl.MP.Nos.13740 & 13741 of 2022