Madras High Court
Periyanayagasamy vs The State Rep. By on 3 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.9893 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.9893 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos. 6553 and 6554 of 2025
1. Periyanayagasamy
2. Rajarathinam
3. Messlyn
4. Jayapriya
5. Arputha Mary ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State rep. by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
E-1, Mylapore Police Station,
(Law and Order),
Mylapore,
Chennai-04.
(Crime No. 306/2023)
2. Geetha ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.9893 of 2025
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,
to call for the records relating to the criminal case in C.C.No.2276 of 2024
on the file of the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai,
Quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.T.Vishnu
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) (for R1)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.2276 of 2024 on the file of the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Saidapet, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime
No.306 of 2023, as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de-
facto complainant is residing with her family in Duming Kuppam,
Mylapore. While so, on 09.08.2023, she had allegedly lodged a complaint in
undisclosed CSR.No.1198 of 2023 before the first respondent police,
wherein, she was advised to approach Chennai Corporation. Accordingly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
she had allegedly filed a complaint before Chennai Corporation. While so,
on 13.08.2023 at 09.00 hours, few persons were allegedly cooking in the
street with three large utensils. They were intercepted by the Sanitary
Workers of Ward No.125 headed by the JE and AE of Chennai Corporation
and removed the cooking utensils from the street. The above alleged
incident was witnessed by the second respondent. While the second
respondent was standing outside her house, 20 persons have allegedly
charged towards her uttering obscene words. It is further alleged that the
petitioners have pushed her down and the fifth petitioner had allegedly hit
her in chest and head with a break. The petitioners were alleged to have
removed her earring worth 1/2 sovereign. Subsequently, the second
respondent was taken to Royapettah Government Hospital by 108
Ambulance. While so, the first and second petitioners have allegedly
intimidated the second respondent with dire consequences. The alleged
incident was reported to the first respondent police on 13.08.2023 at 20.00
hrs and the first respondent police had registered the FIR in Crime No.306
of 2023 for the aforesaid offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners are innocent 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.306 of 2023 for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC of IPC, as against the
petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.2276 of 2024
on the file of the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.
3.1. He would further submit that there are contradictions between
the statements of LW.2 and LW3. That apart, there is no recovery in respect
of the weapons used during the alleged occurrence. Hence, he prayed to
quash the same. It must be pointed out here that the said contradiction,
which can be raised before the trial Court during the trial by way of cross
examination of the prosecution witnesses, cannot be a ground to quash the
entire proceedings at this stage.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit
that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
examined in this case.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and
perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.306 of 2023
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of
IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report
and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.2276 of 2024 by the trial
Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the
petitioners filed the present petition.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgement 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
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 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
8. Further, 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
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 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
9. 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.
10. Further, this Court cannot observe at this stage whether the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is
required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
ground raised by the petitioners to quash the final report/charge sheet
cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2276 of 2024 on the file of the 18th
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. The petitioners are at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The personal
appearance of the third to fifth petitioners are 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.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
03.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation/Yes/No
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
To
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
E-1, Mylapore Police Station,
(Law and Order),
Mylapore,
Chennai-04.
2. The 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Saidapet,
Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
03.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 08:08:04 pm )
