Madras High Court
R. Vijayakumar vs M. Shanmugasundaram on 1 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl. O.P. No. 7003 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl. O.P. No. 7003 of 2025
and
Crl. M.P. Nos. 5130 & 5133 of 2024
R. Vijayakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
M. Shanmugasundaram .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the case pending on the file
of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore in C.C. No.
2440 of 2023 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. A.G. Rajan
For Respondent : Mr. B. Manoharan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C. No. 2440 of 2023 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )
2. The respondent lodged private complaint as against the
petitioner alleging that the respondent's mother signature was forged and
filed compromise memo in the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration
in O.S. No.2535 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore
and obtained decree in respect of the property owned by the respondent's
mother. She died on 16.12.2000. Thereafter, on 07.01.2001, her signature
was forged and filed vakalat in O.S. No. 2535 of 2000. Thereafter, on
30.01.2001, compromise memo was filed as if, the respondent's mother
signed in the compromise and obtained decree on 30.01.2001.
3. Initially the respondent filed police complaint and thereafter, it
was recorded as mistake of fact. Thereafter, the respondent has filed a
private complaint and the same has been taken cognizance and issued
summons to the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, there are specific allegations as against the
petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465 & 466 of
IPC.
5. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )
entire proceedings.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in
2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing
with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the
High Courts have 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 as
against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while
deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while
deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C.
7. Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi
Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for
quashment of complaint or charge sheet, 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 consititue certain offences
complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions
requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and
whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in
entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused
will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would
arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )
9. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation
of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal
proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this
stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2440 of 2023 on the file of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore. The petitioner is at liberty to raise
all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to
complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
01.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
AT
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AT
Crl. O.P. No. 7003 of 2025 and
Crl. M.P. Nos. 5130 & 5133 of 2024
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:33:09 am )
