Madras High Court

M.Anandan vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 September, 2022

                                                                                Crl.O.P.No.21546 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.21546 of 2022
                                                          and
                                          Crl.O.P.Nos.14001 and 14003 of 2022

                     M.Anandan                                                         ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs

                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                        B-1, Siva Kanchi Police Station,
                        Kanchipuram District.
                        Crime No. 11 of 2017.

                     2.M.Masthan                                                ... Respondents



                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to call for the records in C.C.No.158 of 2019 on the file of the
                     learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram.

                                          For Petitioner     : Mr.M.Vijay Anand

                                          For R1             : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                               Additional Public Prosecutor
                                          For R2             : No appearance


                     Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022




                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.158

of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the

owner of the biriyani shop. It is alleged that on 30.112017, at about

07.00.p.m., the petitioner came in a swift car and purchased biriyani and

thereby refused to pay the amount. When the same was questioned by the

defacto complainant, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and

also threatened with dire consequences.

3. 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 and he never know about the second respondent.

Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime

No.11 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 384 and 506(1) of

IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in

C.C.No. 158 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022

Kanchipuram. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

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 Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing for the

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

appearing for the first respondent.

6. On perusal of records, there are specific allegations as against the

petitioner and there are materials to attract the offence under Sections

294(b), 384 and 506(1) of IPC.

7. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022

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.

8. 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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022

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.”

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022

points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.158 of 2019 in Crime No.11 of 2017 on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram. The

petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The

trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months

from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. However, the petitioner is at

liberty to file another quash petition on the ground of compromise arises

between the parties.