Madras High Court

R.Jeyaraman vs The State Rep. By Its on 28 March, 2024

                                                                     Crl.O.P(MD)No.15314 of 2020

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                Dated : 28.03.2024

                                                    CORAM :


                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                           Crl.O.P(MD)No.15314 of 2020
                                                      and
                                       Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.7416 and 7418 of 2020


                1.R.Jeyaraman
                2.D.Sendukodi
                3.R.Revathi
                4.D.Balakrishnan                                  ... Petitioners/Accused 1to4

                                                       Vs.

                1.The State rep. by its
                  The Inspector of Police,
                  Checkanurani
                  Madurai District.
                  (C.C.No.74 of 2019)                           ...1st Respondent/Complainant

                2.K.Kasinathan                                  ...Respondent/De-facto
                                                                            Complainant

                Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                Criminal Procedure, to call for records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.
                74 of 2019 learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti and quash the same.


                1




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           Crl.O.P(MD)No.15314 of 2020

                                           For Petitioners     : MJ.Jeyakumaran
                                           For R1              : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
                                                                Additional Public Prosecutor
                                           For R2              : Mr.R.Ramasamy
                                                             ****

                                                         ORDER

The instant criminal original petition has been filed to quash the

charge sheet in C.C.No.74 of 2019 pending before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned

counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the property

situated in S.No.s138/3A1, 138/3A2 and 138/3B belongs to one Devaraj. It

appears that the said Devaraj has executed a registered sale agreement on

02.04.2012 in favour of the de-facto complainant. As per the sale agreement,

the total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.64,25,000/- and on the date of sale

agreement itself, an advance of Rs.5 lakhs was paid and thereafter, under few

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

occasions remaining a sum of R.3,50,000/- has been given to the petitioners and

thus, totally, a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- received by the petitioners. It is the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the property referred

to in the sale agreement is the absolute property of Devaraj by virtue of

assignment issued by the Special Tahsildar Land Reforms. Therefore, it is the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no offence under

Sections 406 and 420 IPC would be made out. Hence, he prays to allow this

petition.

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

the first respondent would vehemently submit that the petitioners had forged

the revenue records and also the original owner of the property L.Rani, who has

been arrayed as fourth witness in the charge sheet. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor would further submit that knowing the pendency of the

various litigations over the property, the petitioner has not divulged all those

things to the de-facto complainant with an intention to illegally receive the

amount and to cause undue loss to the de-facto complainant, from the very

inception of the sale agreement. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor

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

would further contend that there are prima facie material available by way of

161 Cr.P.C statement and in the compliant. Therefore, contended that while

exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court cannot go into

the minute details.

5. In line with the above submission, the learned counsel for the de-

facto complainant has reiterated the submission of the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor.

6.I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by

either side.

7.The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that, the

petitioners herein has received Rs.8,50,000/- from the de-facto complainant by

executing the sale agreement in respect of the property referred to in the

agreement, without having any title over the property. But the learned counsel

for the petitioners would submit that they are having title over the property

through the assignment patta issued by the Tahsildar Land Reforms.

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

8.On perusal of 161 Cr.P.C statement and the complaint, this Court

could able to find out prima facie materials against these petitioners. While

exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court cannot go into

disputed fact. It is the settled principles of law that while taking the prosecution

case as such and if no offence is made out, then only this Court can interfere

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9.At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to discuss the

precedents in respect of Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to rely upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State

of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 351 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

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

Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings. 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.23546 of 2017 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.

10. It is also useful to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna,

reported in (2019)10 SCC 686, 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 High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and

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

uncalled for.”

11. Further, it is pertinent to mention the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, reported

in (2019)SCC Online SC 2058, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

"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

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

the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................."

12.Therefore, in view of the above settled legal proposition, this

Court is of the view that when there is a disputed facts urged by the either party

and when there is a prima facie materials available through 161 Cr.P.C

statement, this Court find it unsafe to quash the charge sheet. Therefore, this

Court is inclined to dismiss the criminal original petition. Hence, this Criminal

Original Petition is dismissed.

13.Considering the age of the first and the second petitioners and the

avocation of the third and fourth petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that

their presence may be dispensed with before the trial Court, except whenever

they are called for by the trial Court and for receiving the copy of the

complaint, for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and while pronouncing

the judgment.