Madras High Court

S. Arivalagan vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 September, 2022

                                                                                Crl.O.P.No.21344 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. 21344 of 2022
                                                          and
                                               Crl.M.P.No.13882 of 2022

                     S. Arivalagan                                                     ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs

                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                        Township Police Station,
                        Neyveli, 607801,
                        Cuddalore District.
                        Crime No.145 of 2012.

                     2. A.Chitrarasan                                              ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the S.T.C.No.601 of 2015
                     on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Neyveli
                     in Crime No.145 of 2012 on the file of the Township Police, Neyveli,
                     Cuddalore District.

                                          For Petitioner     : Mr.C.Selvaraj

                                          For R1             : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                               Additional Public Prosecutor

                     Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    Crl.O.P.No.21344 of 2022




                                                              ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.601

of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at

Neyveli in Crime No.145 of 2012 on the file of the Township Police,

Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.03.2021, the petitioner

had driven his four wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN 02 S 9406 in a rash and

negligent manner and hit the injured, who was riding his two wheeler

bearing Reg. No. TN 31 A 2203 and thereby caused the accident. Due to the

accident, the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the

charge.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the year

2016 onwards, it is pending for trial and keep on adjourning the matter

without proceeding with the trial.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21344 of 2022

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit totally

there are 11 witnesses and now the matter has been posted for examination

of witnesses.

5. Heard Mr.C.Selvaraj learned counsel appearing for the

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

appearing for the respondent.

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 against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21344 of 2022

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21344 of 2022

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.”

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21344 of 2022

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.

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

quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.601 of 2015 on the file of the learned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21344 of 2022

District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Neyveli. 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