Madras High Court
Kravuthar Singh vs State Rep. By Its on 10 September, 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9416 and 9417 of 2024
1.Kravuthar Singh
2.Thamil Mani ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Suchindram Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.156 of 2017)
2.Jayapaul ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S.,
to call for the records in C.C.No.606 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate III, Nagercoil and quash the same as against this
petitioners as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.606 of
2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there existed previous enmity
between the petitioners and the second respondent and that on
24.04.2017 at about 06.00 p.m., the first petitioner had abused the second
respondent's wife in filthy language and at the instigation of the second
petitioner, the first petitioner attacked the second respondent's wife with
aruval and caused injuries.
3. It is evident from the records that on the basis of the complaint
lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.
156 of 2017 and after completing the investigation, the first respondent
has filed the charge sheet against the petitioners for the alleged offences
under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC and the case was taken
cognizance in C.C.No.606 of 2022 and the same is pending on the file of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that there existed dispute between the petitioners and the second
respondent, that they used to quarrel very often and on the occurrence
day, there arose wordy quarrel between the parties and there is no
specific injury sustained by the second respondent's wife and that there is
no eye witness for the occurrence.
5. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side), the above points, by no stretch of imagination, can be
taken as grounds or reasons to impugn the charge sheet and are matter for
trial. Except the above, the petitioners have not canvassed any other
reason or ground to quash the charge sheet.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426
has enumerated 7 categories of cases, where the power can be exercised
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
extracted hereunder:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) where the allegations made in the
First Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding
is instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
7. In Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2019 (18) SCC 191, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has specifically held that exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is
settled law that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
wide but at the same time, the same is to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the Section itself.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (3) Crimes 247 has stated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
that, that Court in catena of decisions has observed that the High Court is
not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the
merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate
jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial and that question is required to be
examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie materials,
if any, requiring no proof and at such stage, the High Court cannot
appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of
FIR and materials relied on.
9. A cursory perusal of the final report and the statements filed
along with the final report would make it clear that there existed a prima
facie case to proceed against the petitioners.
10. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the
submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
and also taking note of the fact that this is not a fit case to quash the
charge sheet against the petitioners, this Court concludes that the petition
is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
11. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.
9416 of 2024 is closed.
12. Considering the age of the petitioners, the personal appearance
of the petitioners before the trial Court is ordered to be dispensed with,
on conditions that they shall appear at the time of initial questioning,
proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing
judgment and on all the hearings, specifically directed by the trial court.
The petitioners are further directed to give an undertaking in the form of
affidavit that they will be duly represented by a counsel on all hearing
dates and that the Counsel representing them will cross examine the
prosecution witnesses on the same day they are examined in chief. The
petitioners shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses. The petitioners
shall appear before the Court in the event their presence is insisted by the
trial judge for the purpose of identification. If the petitioners adopts any
dilatorial tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist for their
appearance and deal with the petitioners in accordance with the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
of Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath
Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.
10.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
csm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Suchindram Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15034 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9416 and 9417 of 2024
Dated: 10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
