Madras High Court
M.Venkatajalapathi vs State Represented By on 1 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No. 9521 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 9521Of 2025
and Crl.MP.No.6285 of 2025
M.Venkatajalapathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Chengalpattu District.
Crime No.622 of 2017.
2. V.Murali .. Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in
C.C.No.87 of 2023 on the file of II Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Jaisingh
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr. A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:56 pm )
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.87 of 2023 on the file of the II Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu
thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468,
471, 420, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.622 of 2017, as against this petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent had
purchased the properties at Mugunthagiri Village, Cheyyur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District by way of five sale deeds. While being so, the
accused approached the second respondent and assured him that he will help
him sell his properties. Believing his words, the second respondent executed
the Power of Attorney in his favour. However, the petitioner without paying
any sale consideration sold out the properties to the third parties. Further, the
defacto complainant contacted the petitioner and requested him to render
accounts for the said Power of Attorneys executed by him. At the time, he
admitted his mistakes and issued three cheques and the same were returned
on the grounds of “insufficient funds”.
3. Per contra, the learned Appellate Court, even after cancellation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:56 pm )
Power of Attorney, the accused entered in an agreement in the name of his
wife by furnishing life certificate to the defacto complainant and registered
the same. Therefore, there are specific allegations against the petitioner.
After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and
the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.87 of 2023 pending on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.622 of 2017 for the offences under Sections
406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner and the
same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.87 of 2023 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu. Hence he prayed to quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:56 pm )
5. 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.
6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.
7. On perusal of the records, it reveals that there are specific
averments to attract the offence under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420,
506(i) of IPC. Even after the cancellation of Power of Attorney, the
petitioner had executed the sale deed. Therefore, it is absolutely cancelled.
It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first
respondent registered a case in Crime No.622 of 2017 for the offences under
Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506(i) of IPC. After completion of
investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been
taken cognizance in C.C.No.87 of 2023. by the trial Court and it is pending.
To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:56 pm )
8. 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 Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (any one)
9. 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: 22/05/2025 04:23:56 pm )
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.
10.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: 22/05/2025 04:23:56 pm )
11. 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 ground
raised by the petitioner to quash the charge sheet cannot be entertained to
quash the entire proceedings.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.87 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu. 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.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.04.2025
drl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:56 pm )
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Chengalpattu District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:56 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
drl
Crl.O.P.No. 9521Of 2025
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:56 pm )
