Madras High Court

Balaji vs State Rep. By on 12 September, 2022

                                                                              CRL.O.P.No.21698 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 12.09.2022

                                                         CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              CRL.O.P.No.21698 of 2022
                                                         &
                                              Crl.M.P.No.14063 of 2022

                Balaji                                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.
                1.State rep. by
                  The Inspector of Police,
                  CCB, Tiruppur,
                  Tiruppur District.

                2. Chandrasekar                                                    ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
                praying to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.200/2022 on the
                file of the Judicial Magistrate – III, Tiruppur and quash the same.


                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.Gobala Krishnalakshmana Raju
                                                             Senior Counsel for
                                                             R.Amburosh

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




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 9
                                                                                  CRL.O.P.No.21698 of 2022




                                                       ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the case in

C.C.No.200/2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – III, Tiruppur and

quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has been running a

company in the name and style of M/s Sivalaya Enterprises which deals with

the sale and transfer of ROSCTL (Rebate of State and Central Taxes and

Levies) Licence Authorisation Scrip. The 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant

is running a company in the name and style of M/s KCS Knits and he is a

customer of the petitioner and the de-facto complainant had handed over his

digital key for the said purpose. It is the alleged case of the prosecution that

two ROSCTL Licenses No.3219091871 dated 10.08.2020 for Rs.15,55,405/-

and No.3219098128 dated 29.10.2020 for Rs.4,08,959/- totalling

Rs.19,64,365/- belonging to the de-facto complainant were sold by the

petitioner without his permission by forging Authorisation letters and

subsequently, did not pay him back. Hence, the complaint was lodged as

against the petitioner and the same was registered in Crime No.09 of 2021 for

offences under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. After completion of

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

CRL.O.P.No.21698 of 2022

investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken

cognizance in C.C.No.200/2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – III,

Tiruppur.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that it is completely a false case foisted as against the petitioner hardly without

any iota of evidence, usage of digital key is not at all possible and as such,

using digital key, there is no question of false application of documents and

issuance of transfer of owner-ship letter. He further submitted that the de-

facto complainant himself admitted that he never handed over any digital key

to the petitioner and he had also transferred the license to the account of the

petitioner and he has requested for security till the time of repayment and for

that purpose alone, the petitioner had handed over blank signed cheques to the

de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant had given transfer letters to

the petitioner at the time of the sale of the above mentioned two ROSCTL

Licenses dated 10.08.2020 and 29.10.2020 and also given invoices for the

same and if at all there was some money transfer, it is only a civil dispute and

the de-facto complainant is trying to give criminal colour to extract money

from the petitioner.

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

CRL.O.P.No.21698 of 2022

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. Mr.Gobala Krishnalakshmana Raju, learned Senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the first 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 trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final

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

CRL.O.P.No.21698 of 2022

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

CRL.O.P.No.21698 of 2022

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 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.

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

CRL.O.P.No.21698 of 2022

..............

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. It is seen from the statement of the 2nd respondent, there are

specific allegations to attract the offences under Section 409, 471, 468 and 420

of IPC as against the petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that using

digital key fabricated the transfer documents and using the fabricated

documents, issued the transfer letter for the license. That apart, the grounds

raised by the petitioner are all mixed question of facts and it cannot be

considered by this Court in a quash petition.

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

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.200 of 2022 in Crime No.9 of 2021 on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.21698 of 2022