Madras High Court
R. Manickavel vs The State Rep. By on 30 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.14042 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.14042 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos.9466 & 9470 of 2025
1. R. Manickavel
2. A.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
EDF-II, Team-IV,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
2. A.G.Sivaraman ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for records relating to
the criminal case in C.C.No.6886 of 2023 on the file of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Cases,
Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as far as the petitioners are
concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Roopesh
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:34:49 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.14042 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.6886 of 2023 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
for Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai, as
against the petitioners thereby taken cognizance for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120B r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 & A3 in the proceedings
in C.C.No.6886 of 2023 on the file of the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore,
Chennai. The allegations are that the first petitioner posing himself as the
agreement holder of the original owner of the property and promised to
offer that property for a sale consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/-. On
various occasions, totally a sum of Rs.1,68,00,000/- was received by the
first petitioner without introducing the title holder to the defacto
complainant. Suspecting foul game, when the defacto complainant
insisted to meet the original owner, the first petitioner tells the defacto
complainant that if he had confidence on him, pay the balance amount or
else get back the money advanced. Then, the first petitioner repaid only a
sum Rs.40,00,000/- to the complainant and did not pay the balance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:34:49 pm )
amount. On verification, the defacto complainant came to know that the
original owner had settled the said property to her legal heirs. When the
defacto complainant demanded money back, the petitioners along with
other accused persons refused to pay the balance amount and also
threatened him with dire consequences.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners are innocents and they have not committed
any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first
respondent police registered a case for the offences under Sections 406,
420, 468, 471, 120B r/w 34 of IPC, as against the petitioners and the
same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.6886 of 2023 on the file of
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB and
CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai. He further submitted that this Court by
an order dated 01.10.2024 in Cr.O.P.No.4252 of 2024 quashed the
proceedings, insofar as the co-accused are concerned. Hence he prayed to
quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit
that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been
examined in this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:34:49 pm )
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side 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.798 of
2011 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120B r/w 34 of
IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final
report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.6886 of 2023
by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal
proceeding, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:34:49 pm )
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. 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 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:34:49 pm )
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 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 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.6886 of 2023 on the file of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Cases,
Egmore, Chennai. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds
before the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:34:49 pm )
personal appearance of the petitioners is 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 351 of BNSS and
at the time of passing judgment. 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.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also
closed.
30.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:34:49 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate
for Exclusive Trial of CCB
and CBCID Cases,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
EDF-II, Team-IV,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
and Crl.M.P.Nos.9466 & 9470 of 2025
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:34:49 pm )
