Madras High Court

S.Baskaran vs M.Uma on 8 September, 2022

                                                                                Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED 08.09.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.O.P.No. 21358 of 2022
                                                          and
                                          Crl.M.P.Nos.13891 and 13894 of 2022

                     S.Baskaran                                                        ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs

                     1. M.Uma

                     2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                        District Crime Branch,
                        Villupuram District,
                        Villupuram.

                     3. The Superintendent of Police,
                        Villupuram District,
                        Villupuram.                                                ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.260/2021 on the file of
                     the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram and quash the same.

                                          For Petitioner     : Mr.M.Palanivel

                                          For R2 & R3        : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                               Additional Public Prosecutor

                     Page 1 of 10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022




                                                        ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.260/2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I,

Villupuram and quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first respondent lodged a

complaint before the 3rd respondent in Ref. No.P2/1922/115/2019, DPO and

later it was forwarded to 2nd Respondent in C.No.118/DSP /DCB/

VPM/2019. The petitioner is the friend of the 1st respondent and the case of

the prosecution is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from the

1st respondent through one Kadhiravan and thereafter the petitioner did not

repaid the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. For which, 1st respondent made a

request to the petitioner for repayment, but he evaded the repayment and

stated that his friend Thattanchavady Sendhil is not in a position to repay

the amount and intended to convey his property/plots at Sendhil Nagar,

Pattanur in lieu of the amount received from the 1st respondent. The

petitioner has pressurized and induced the 1st respondent to get the Sale

Deed executed as the property is in prime location and in the absolute

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022

possession of Thattanchavady Sendhil and forced the 1st respondent to

purchase the property in Plot Nos.17 and 18 of Sendhil Nagar, Pattanur,

Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District for which the fixed sale price @ Rs.700/-

per sq.ft. to an extent of 2400 sq.ft. and Sale Deed dated 28.02.2011 vide

document No.1043/2011 was executed by one Elangovan who is owner of

the property/plots. The petitioner attested as witness in the above sale deed

and the 1st respondent has further alleged that the petitioner along with other

accused have received a sum of Rs.16,80,000/- towards the sale

consideration and Rs.70,000/- as registration expenses. Further alleged that

the 1st respondent applied for the Patta and the Tahsildar Vanur rejected the

application stating that in Plot Nos.17 and 18 at Sendhil Nagar, Pattanur

being re-survey No.238/1 relates to Patta No.595 and the same stood in the

name of one Kannan. The complaint further alleged that the petitioner along

with other accused forged the documents a common intention to cheat the 1st

respondent and used the forged documents as genuine for their unlawful

gain to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/- for which one Sekar also rendered his

assistance to them. Therefore, the act of all the said six persons are liable to

be punished u/s.465, 468 r/w 34, 471 and 506 (2) of I.P.C.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the

petitioner lodged a complaint and the same was enquired and closed. The

first respondent has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 465, 468 r/w 34, 471 and 506 (2) of I.P.C. He further submits that

the petitioner being a police officer a false case has been foisted against

him.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

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

examined in this case.

5. Heard Mr.M.Palanivel learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the second and third respondents.

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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022

" 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.21358 of 2022

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 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.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022

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 appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21358 of 2022

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 C.C.No.260 of 2021 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram. 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