Madras High Court

D.Ragul vs State on 7 September, 2022

                                                                                 CRL.O.P.No.21353 of 2022
                                                                             and Crl.MP.No.13889 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.21353 of 2022
                                                        and
                                               Crl.MP.No.13889 of 2022
                D.Ragul                                                                  ... Petitioner
                                                            Vs.
                1. State
                   Rep. by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
                   Nagapattinam District.
                2. D.Prabhakaran
                                                                                      ... Respondents

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

                praying to call for the records pertaining to the Spl SC No.10/2022 on the file

                of the Principal District Judge at Nagapattinam u/s 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323,

                506(ii) IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST prevention of Atrocities

                Amendment Act 2015 against the petitioner herein and quash the same.

                                        For Petitioner       : Mr.K.Venkatesan

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

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

CRL.O.P.No.21353 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No.13889 of 2022

This petition has been filed to quash the Spl SC No.10 of 2022 on the

file of the learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam for offences under

Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)

of SC/ST prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act 2015 as against the

petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Prabhakaran appeared before

the respondent police on 20.11.2021 at around 9.30.a.m and lodged a

complaint alleging that one Kathiravan, 2nd witness and was standing at a

mobile tiffin shop opposite to Pearless Theatre, Mayiladuthurai along with

Divakaran, Abhutheer and Chandrabose, there was a quarrel picked up

between A1 viz., Ranjit and A3-Satheesh as they hit the food plate of

Kathiravan and scolded them by mentioning their caste name and it was further

alleged that thereafter, on the same day at 1.30.am the aforesaid Kathiravan,

Divakaran, Abudaheer and Chandrabose were walking opposite to Laya

Regency at Mayuranathar Keezha Street, Mayiladuthurai, the accused were

intercepted them and scolded the above said persons in a filthy language and

attacked them. It was alleged that the first accused attacked them with sickle

and caused cut injury on their head and also caused simple injury apart from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.21353 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No.13889 of 2022

causing severe injury on the right hand head.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.Raj

Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

4. 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.

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

CRL.O.P.No.21353 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No.13889 of 2022

5. 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 matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”

6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order

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

CRL.O.P.No.21353 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No.13889 of 2022

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 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

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

CRL.O.P.No.21353 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No.13889 of 2022

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the

proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal

District Judge, Nagapattinam. 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,

the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of