Madras High Court

A.Mujibur Rahman vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 14 September, 2022

                                                                                 CRL.O.P.No.22057 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 14.09.2022

                                                         CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              CRL.O.P.No.22057 of 2022
                                                         &
                                              Crl.M.P.No.14219 of 2022



                A.Mujibur Rahman                                                          ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
                  Town Police Station,
                  Karaikal Vide FIR No.0196/2021.

                2.Kanagasekaran                                                       ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
                praying to call for the records in STC No.835 of 2021 on the file of the Court
                of the District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikkal District and
                quash the same.


                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.A.Jotheeswaran

                                        For Respondents : Mr. V.Balamurugane
                                                          Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
                                                          For R1


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 8
                                                                                 CRL.O.P.No.22057 of 2022

                                                       ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records in S.T.C.No.835 of

2021 pending on the file of learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate

No.II, Karaikkal District for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) & 323

of IPC and to quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, due to land dispute, the petitioner

herein had assaulted the de-facto complainant with hands and abused him in

filthy language. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on

the date of occurrence, the petitioner also sustained injuries and got admitted

in the hospital. He further submitted that a complaint has also been lodged as

against the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the 1st

respondent would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the

witnesses have been examined in this case.

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

CRL.O.P.No.22057 of 2022

5. Heard Mr. Mr.A.Jotheeswaran, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

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 order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.

13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we

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

CRL.O.P.No.22057 of 2022

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

CRL.O.P.No.22057 of 2022

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

13. A look at the complaint filed by the

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

CRL.O.P.No.22057 of 2022

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. Though the petitioner is an handicapped person, there are specific

allegations to attract the offences under Sections 294(b) & 323 of IPC as

against the petitioner. Further, there is no iota of evidence to show that the

petitioner also sustained injuries and no accident report was produced before

this Court. That apart, no First Information Report has been registered on the

complaint lodged by the petitioner.

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

quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.835 of 2021 in Crime No.196 of 2021 on

the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Karaikkal District. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before