Madras High Court

V.Ramu vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 September, 2022

                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.22767 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 21.09.2022

                                                          CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.O.P.No.22767 of 2022
                                       and Crl.M.P.Nos.14595 and 14596 of 2022

                1.V.Ramu
                2.K.Balu @ Balamurugan
                3.C.Raja
                4.Bakkiyam                                              ... Petitioners

                                                           Vs.
                1. The Inspector of Police,
                   Thiyagadurgam Police Station,
                   Kallakuruchi District.

                2. D.Chinnadurai                                        ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
                praying to call for the records in CC.No.21 of 2018 on the file of Judicial
                Magistrate Court-II, Kallakuruchi District and quash the same.

                                        For Petitioners     : Ms.K.Varsha

                                        For R1              : Mr.S.Santhosh
                                                              Government Advocate (Crl. Side)




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/8
                                                                             Crl.O.P.No.22767 of 2022


                                                      ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records in

CC.No.21 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Kallakuruchi

District and to quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2016, the accused

persons came with deadly weapons and threatened the defacto complainant

with dire consequences. They also attacked the defacto complainant with

chappals and sticks. Hence, a case was registered as against the accused

persons for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 355 and 506(2) of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defacto

complainant and other witnesses stated that the occurrence had taken place on

28.05.2016, even in the complaint and all the documents. However, in the

statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, the second respondent stated

that they have wrongly given the date of occurrence as 28.05.2016 instead of

28.04.2016. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

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

Crl.O.P.No.22767 of 2022

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the

trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in

this case.

5. Though there are discrepancies in the statement as well as the

complaint, it cannot be considered to quash the proceedings. The petitioners

ought to have deposed the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court.

6. In this regard, 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.22767 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

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

Crl.O.P.No.22767 of 2022

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 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.22767 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 are mixed question of facts and it cannot be

considered in quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

proceedings in CC.No.21 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-II,

Kallakuruchi District. The personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed

with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate

application. However, the petitioners 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 time of passing judgment. The trial Court is directed to

complete the trial, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this Order.

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