Madras High Court
Chandran vs State: The Inspector Of Police on 8 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.Nos.20648 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.20648 of 2023
and
Crl.MP.Nos.14091 and 14092 of 2023
1. Chandran
2. Janakiraman
3. Balaji
4. Arun Prabakaran ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State: The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvallur Town Police Station,
Thiruvallur District.
2. Mariyappan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in
PRC.No.02 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
Crl.OP.Nos.20648 of 2023
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1
: Mr.K.Balasubramaniam for R2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
charge sheet in PRC.No.02 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate-I, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first
respondent has registered an FIR against the petitioners in Cr.No. of
for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 448, 379, 506(2) and
34 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TN Public Property (Prevention of
Damage and Loss), Act 1992.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.09.2005, the
defacto complainant had entered into unregistered sale agreement
with one Chandran(A1) relating to residential plots and shops
comprised in Old Survey No.134 , New Survey No.182/2A, Plot
No.70 admeasuring to an extent of 2115 sq.ft situated at Iveli Agaram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District , but A1 is purposely and
wrongly mentioned the schedule mentioned property as S.No.782/9,
782/24, Plot No.64 admeasuring to an extent of 2115 Sq.ft situated at
Iveli Agaram Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District in the sale
agreement. Thereafter in the year 2006, the first petitioner is executed
the power of attorney deed in favour of the second petitioner
subsequently in the year 2007 and 2018, the first petitioner sold the
property to and in favour of third petitioner and one Mr.Saravanan for
the above said property and they are not mentioned the shops in their
sale deed for which loss for the Government then the defacto
complainant is filed two suits against them in O.S.No.161 of 2006
and 53 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Thiruvallur. After receiving the
Court summon, they were demolished the said two shops on
02.03.2018 and stolen the two shutters from there. Subsequently, he
filed the petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Thiruvallur
an the same was ordered thereafter, the first respondent has
registered the FIR .
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that there is no material to attract the offence as against the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
and there was no demolition in the premises.
5. Even according to the evidence of Revenue Officials, there
was no shop and no demolition. These grounds can be raised only
before the trial Court during trial. That apart, there are specific
averment to attract the offence 120B, 448, 379, 506(2) and 34 of IPC
and Section 3(1) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and
Loss), Act 1992 as against the petitioner.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for
the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and and prayed
for dismissal.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
8. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.261 of
2019 for the offences under Sections 120B, 448, 379, 506(2) and 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
of IPC and Section 3(1) of TN Public Property (Prevention of
Damage and Loss), Act 1992. After completion of investigation, the
first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken
cognizance in P.RC.No.02 of 2023 by the trial Court and it is
pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed
the present petition.
9. 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./180 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (any one)
10. 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 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.
11. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
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.
12. 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 state. 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.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not
inclined to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.2 of 2023 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate -I, Thiruvallur District. The
petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.
Considering the age of the petitioner, the personal appearance of the
petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioner shall be
present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing
charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of
passing judgment. The trial Court is directed to complete the
committal proceedings within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also
closed.
08.04.2025
Vv
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-I,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
Crl.O.P.No20648 of 2023
08.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:57 am )
