Madras High Court

Udhayakumar vs State Rep. By Its on 20 September, 2022

                                                                             Crl.O.P.No.13982 of 2022


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED       20.09.2022

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              Crl.O.P.No.13982 of 2022
                                                        and
                                              Crl.M.P.No.7598 of 2022

                     1.Udhayakumar
                     2.Vasanthi
                     3.Ashwini
                     4.Vijayakumar                                           ... Petitioners

                                                          Vs

                     1.State Rep. by its
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       All Women Police Station,
                       Ranipet,
                       Ranipet District.

                     2.Malathi                                               ... Respondents



                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to
                     call for the records in Charge Sheet filed in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2021, on the
                     file of Special Court for trial cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, and quash the
                     same.



                     Page 1 of 10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      Crl.O.P.No.13982 of 2022




                                               For Petitioners    : Mr.V.Raghavachari for
                                                                    M.Narayanaswamy

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

                                                     For R2       : Mr.K.Murali



                                                        ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2021 on the file of Special Court for trial cases under SC

and ST (POA) Act, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under

Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(r)

and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Crime No.11

of 2021, as against this petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that the first

petitioner befriended with the defacto complainant through social media and

developed love affair between them. Thereafter, the first petitioner promised

the defacto complainant to marry her and had physical relationship with her.

While that being so, on 24.12.2020, when the defacto complainant along

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13982 of 2022

with her relatives went to the house of the first petitioner, the second

petitioner with an intention to insult them stated that ''Nee Paraiyar jathi,

Naangal Nayakkar jathi'' and the petitioners three and four have join

together threatened them. Thereafter, when the defacto complainant

informed the said incident to the first petitioner, he has abused insulted and

humiliated her caste. Hence, the charges were framed against the petitioners.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners are innocents and they have not committed any

offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent

police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2021 for the offences under

Sections Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i),

3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as against

the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.16 of

2021 on the file of the Special Court for trial cases under SC and ST (POA)

Act. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13982 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 the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the

learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

6. It is seen that there are specific allegations as against the

petitioners to attract offence under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) IPC,

Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioners are

mixed question of fact and it cannot be considered by this Court in the

quash petition.

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.13982 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.13982 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.13982 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13982 of 2022

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.

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

quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2021 in Crime No.11 of 2021 on

the file of the Special Court for trial cases under SC and ST (POA) Act. The

petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. In so

far as the first petitioner is concerned, the first petitioner was already

dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2022 and the personal appearance of the

petitioners 2 to 4 is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a